JasSmith

Most male computer uses watch porn and would not want an AI to log that. Many women find porn sickening and don’t understand it and will never understand male urges that result in watching it. The fact that this got into a finished product tells you a lot about Microsoft’s corporate culture.

Excellent point. We saw exactly the same phenomenon play out with Google and Gemini. The tool created racially diverse Nazis. Even a few minutes with the tool revealed major issues. There must have been hundreds of people who witnessed the slow moving train crash in realtime, but were either unwilling or unable to speak out. I think these companies have clearly cultivated a hierarchical culture of fear and intimidation. I recently left a job in which my manager was ex-Google. The stories she would tell were appalling. Her command-and-control style was, frankly, disgusting. She permitted zero critical feedback or discussion. It was her way or "fuck off." I found that very instructive as to how these companies have morphed into shells of their formers selves. I'm not bullish on the future of these companies. They're coasting very well on the fumes of their historical successes, and I think their demise is all but assured.

Yeah the concept is pretty damn cool. It's just horrifying to have a company own and control that data. I suspect this is like Xbox One launch disaster in 2013, in which Microsoft initially required all consoles to have an always-online connection. People rebelled, but today and certainly on our current trajectory, it now looks like Microsoft was just a little ahead of the curve. I think people will eventually become a lot more comfortable with companies owning their data because the benefits will be so enormous. I'm not happy about that future, but I think I understand it.

Yeah fries and soda are an easy ditch. The burger is where it’s at.

Google is on a tear. First Bard, then Gemini, now snippets injected into search results. All spectacular failures.

Some of you people are going to become deeply depressed when Trump wins in November.

No it was tried as a 1st amendment issue. It needs to be tried as a 4th amendment issue which it actually it.

The Fourth Amendment has been interpreted to exclude not only homeless individuals’ privacy interests, but also their ability to move around in public spaces. The Fourth Amendment only covers police interactions with civilians where there is a seizure. However, an interaction is not considered a seizure when a reasonable individual would feel free to terminate the encounter (Florida v Bostick (1991)). Without a property interest to anchor a homeless individual to a particular location, a police officer’s directive to move along from a public place does not trigger any Fourth Amendment interest, since complying with the order will end the interaction and not deprive the homeless individual of any property (Stephen E. Henderson, “Move On” Orders as Fourth Amendment Seizures, 2008 BYU L. Rev. 1, 18 (2008)).

Ie. Camping isn’t protected under the first amendment act as it isn’t expressive initself which that ruling if you read it makes clear. Essentially by itself it isn’t but it could theoretically be made expressive but that hasn’t be tried.

You can read it here. The defendants argued exactly that. It is the premise of the entire case.

We need not differ with the view of the Court of Appeals that overnight sleeping in connection with the demonstration is expressive conduct protected to some extent by the First Amendment.

They argue at length about the limits of this expression, and the distinction between facilitative and expressive acts. So it has definitely been tried, and has been thoroughly rebuked.

Someone already tried that in 1984. When homeless activists camped out on Lafayette Square in front of the White House, the Supreme Court ruled in Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence that the act of sleeping itself was “facilitative,” rather than “expressive,” meaning that campgrounds aren’t protected forms of speech at all.

It’s not like the technology is a con. Brain implants have been iterated upon for decades. This is just the latest incarnation - after extensive animal testing. I don’t think we have a right to tell a quadriplegic they may not meaningfully improve their lives because we feel the risk is too high. They’re locked in a living prison.

I can't say I disagree. There is much to criticise.

I don't think there's anything in the Constitution about enjoying public spaces either. If you're allowed to camp on state land in your state it's because your state law permits it.