Just an idea: have a look in ask Lemmy or no stupid questions for posts of people who have asked similar questions in the last 12 months or so. How to bring about change or how to start a revolution has been asked. In those posts you’ll at least find another user who is thinking along your lines. There may be more in the comments. Reach out to them.

I think there are two trends. 1) in the early 90s people still got their porn fix from magazine stashes hidden in the woods. Or so the legend goes. So a sex scene or just some boobs were a welcomed element in a movie. In the 70s it was quite common to have absolutely gratuitous female nudity in movies that didn’t need it. Fast forward to the new millennium and you can get any porn you like on your phone in 15 seconds. People don’t go mad if there isn’t a sex scene in it any more. Sensibilities have changed; also in regards to what actors -however well paid- have to go through. Also, US movies have always been more tolerant of violence than sex.

2. Movie financing has shifted more to China and they are even more prudish than the Americans as far as movie censorship is concerned. If you want your movie to get a license to play over there, don’t make the Chinese the bad guys, don’t kill any Chinese people in the movie, and switch to footage of a train going into a tunnel when it gets hot and steamy.

I wouldn’t lay blame here mostly at Google’s feet. They AI-err on the side of caution. I don’t know if Google finds itself as defendants in a court room right now where the influence of an LLM lead to killing or suicide. This sort of caution is the result of various user psychoses that we have learned exist in the world. Teenagers or other easily susceptible folks thinking they are Jesus, talking to god or aliens, etc. I would go so far as to say well done in a better safe than sorry kind of way in this case.

What we learn here is that the model doing search and the algorithm operate seemingly independently. And that the so-called AI results aren’t great. Water is wet, more at eleven.

Google had good search results from the late 90s to about the early 2010s. Nothing else about that company was not weird at any time. With glassholes jumping out of airplanes or them buying up almost the entire online ad market and then abusing their market position. What they are doing with Android has me this close to switching to an iPhone. And YouTube comes with its own Pandora’s box of challenges. They famously edited the “don’t be evil” stuff out of their mission statement. There are bigger Google fish to fry than this “AI summary.”

You’re formulating arguments why I’m wrong. With the greatest of respect, that’s defeatism speaking. Difficult? Yes. Checkmate? No. It may take a crisis to get this going; the New Deal didn’t come from nowhere either.

You cannot fix all of these issues at once. You probably cannot fix a lot of these issues without first improving education levels within the population. A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step.

Term limits for SC judges to some odd number of years for any new appointees is something both sides will be able to agree on. If nobody tries though, of course it won’t happen.

The US has been checkmated …

I’m going to take issue with this statement. Nobody has checkmated the US. If we have to stay in this metaphor, the US checkmated itself.

One of the biggest mistakes was to allot the same number of votes to Rhode Island as to California in the senate. A more proportionate voting system would do wonders for half the issues you listed. Appointing judges for life is another one. Financing election campaigns like that is also mad. Nobody forced Americans to do business like that.

This isn’t a game of chess where checkmate is irreversible. The sooner folks stop formulating arguments why I’m wrong or why these are insurmountable hurdles, the better for all of us.

While I do agree that with the cult clown car people in charge of the executive right now, there is an added difficulty to passing legislation. The Epstein Act part 1 has shown though there are ways. So regulation on so-called AI is still possible and not late like the article seems to suggest.

What’s the point of this article? To highlight that the sausage maker that is a parliamentary democracy is slow? Or to show how narrow majority margins cause long delays in passing legislation? I can’t imagine it’s only the lack of knowledge about so-called AI. I imagine many members don’t know that much about tax law, the intricacies of the military, or drugs in general. Yet we don’t question their qualifications when they pass legislation on those subjects. We elect people to these bodies not on the basis that they are experts at everything but for their ability to look into issues and form an opinion that hopefully most resembles ours. They cannot know everything, no matter how much they pretend. If that is the standard we hold them to, you’ll only get braggadocios assholes who will stand for elections.

When has a legislature ever been on top of the latest developments, especially in tech? It’s pretty much always reactive. The seatbelt and crumple zone came after the introduction of the automobile. OSHA didn’t predate the industrial revolution. Section 230 came after the WWW. Not by much in the grand scheme of things but still. We are what now? 4-5 years into this madness? It’s not unusual not to have great regulations set in stone.

Don’t travel to places where it’s illegal. And if you do, don’t try to acquire anything while in places where the legislation has real teeth. Chances are if weed is illegal, any fun substitute will be as well. Depending on where you are going a positive blood test, should you get in trouble with the law for whatever reason, may still get you in trouble even if all of the weed in your bloodstream was consumed where it was legal to do so. That’s also something to consider two months ahead of your trip abroad.

If you are so worried that you cannot break your habitual use you may want to investigate your use pattern even while you are where it is legal. Marijuana addiction is not a huge societal problem overall but it can be for the individual.

The devil is in the details. You have to define homelessness first. Would a ban on that even be legal? And what is the state doing to prevent it and/or what are the penalties for violators? There is certainly a chance that this inches painfully close to keeping people concentrated, in a camp, which should, in a sane world, weigh heavily against such a ban. But if a ban meant anybody on the street gets put in an apartment, given medical care including therapy, and then given a chance to become a productive member of society within their means, then it wouldn’t be imprisonment. That’s the Finnish solution to the problem, which benefits from having a smaller population in the country overall and a smaller percentage of homeless people than, say, Los Angeles.

Fools! That’s exactly what was missing from creating Skynet! The workers were replaced with slop bots, now management gets replaced by slop bots too! It’s slop bots all the way down! Run for the hills!

It seems to me like you are coming to grips with the fact that statistics are nice but one mustn’t trust those one hasn’t forged personally.

I imagine there may be political or even practical reasons why they draw the line there. A lot of times lines remain fixed because they made more sense when they were drawn ages ago and now it’s just a pain in the butt to change them. Or to keep numbers comparable with those from previous years.

Eight minutes can seem very long though.

The “I find it fucking disgusting, bro!” fraction probably isn’t here. Or if they are, they are probably smart enough not to walk into this wood chipper.

There is a strong correlation between shame people feel for having tried it before or for not being able to admit to themselves that they feel this way and then how loud they get. Pair that with religiosity or just a very conservative environment and upbringing and you get the aforementioned bros. It’s more about how they feel, how insecure they are, than about anything physically off-putting. And as somebody who once reacted poorly to being hit on by a lovely Aussie, I think it’s also the somewhat unexpected element of it. We are pattern recognisers. Heterosexual is the majority. We can easily get freaked out by something that’s different. And a lot of the LGBTQ+ folks are still not living their romance in public (if there is some and they also want to) because they avoid wood chippers society has an unfortunately abundant supply of for them.

I’m an alien. I’m a legal alien.

I think if I was caught like this, the last thing I’d want to do is talk to the media about it. Not even under a pseudonym. But this story is probably not here to make Google feel bad and return some of the money. This is a reminder for parents everywhere to review payment and parental settings on anything their kids use online. You can be smug enough to say my 8yo doesn’t stream on Twitch or whatever because why tf would you let them anyway. But you’re deleting the credit card off of Google Play because you forgot it was there because parenting makes you forgetful at times.

My opinion as another cis dude: there are three things at play. (1) What is the definition of “feminism?” If you believe that women and men and everybody in between and beyond are equally worthy members of society and should not be discriminated against in any way, then you fit my definition and can call yourself a feminist. (2) I recognize that this is a hot button issue for some people unfortunately. I also see that other people may operate under a different definition. I give shit to anybody with opinions on the matter that go against (1). I don’t necessarily use the word “feminist” in that context because some words - good words! - have a way of closing people off like an oyster. “Woke” and “feminism” are two examples. Worthy concepts behind both in my view but the mere mention makes some people stop listening. Especially those who would benefit from widening their horizons. Humans are capable of rational thought but we don’t always do or behave that way. I’m dogmatic in my opinion but I’m not dogmatic in the language that I use so I try and adjust it to fit the situation. (3) Even among supposed allies you’ll find oddballs. You don’t want to be a self-professed feminist who mansplains feminism, just as an example.

In this mixed minefield, I think I want to be judged more by my actions than the terms I use.

The premise seems to suggest that the target companies’ security measures remain locked in at current levels. So while the attacker models scheme and plan and infiltrate, they do not notice or they do nothing. I don’t think that would be realistic.

I also don’t think the targeted companies don’t already feed all their data into some models. There will be beaches and poorly configured LLMs - the prize won’t be as juicy, the impact of the grand conspiracy won’t be as big.

I think the sky will not fall here.

They are a bit vague on this but I suspect all of these attack vectors start with LEOs having physical access to the unlocked phone. They then set up a trusted desktop without the phone owners knowing.

Which is clever, to be fair. Whether or not that’s legal is already a court case. The law is so frightfully grey.

It’s not used in the sense that somebody slept in it. But the packaging seal has been broken because it’s a returned item. The risk of lice is manageable.

That’s exactly it.

This is not a picture of you, right? Maybe you didn’t doxx her but there is really no need to continue this being spread online for a post in this forum.