chicken @ chicken @lemmy.dbzer0.com

Posts

6

Comments

2,160

Joined

2 yr. ago

The exact logic behind why in the world they thought this would be a good idea will be a better question answered in court

I sympathize with the guy's situation but that's a hell of a bait and switch headline, no explanation of what happened there is offered beyond it

More nuance than you normally see in these kinds of screenshots

Definitely feeling some anxiety about this one

what’s likely is that users will scatter across so many sites, apps, proxies, and channels that they’ll become untraceable, guaranteeing the failure of future regulations. And unlike today, many of those new destinations will be dangerous, unmoderated, and openly hostile to enforcement.

That seems to be the argument; that these verification laws specifically target dedicated porn sites while similar content still exists all over and is not similarly punished, which given people's extreme and natural aversion to doing KYC for porn will cause them to leave for wherever doesn't demand it, killing off what protections now exist against especially shady material and practices.

but I’m playing it in English, so I guess I wouldn’t have anyway?

The text in the screenshot in the reddit post they link is in English

“It’s curiosity about a really sick and evil mind. We read it the way you read [Karl Marx’s] Das Kapital.”

hmmm

The article makes the argument that it is overtly anti queer:

The law targets "explicit descriptions of gay sex or other sexual perversions". Heterosexual depictions often have more leeway - works by acclaimed Chinese authors, including Nobel Laureate Mo Yan, have graphic sexual scenes, but are widely available.

Although authors of heterosexual erotica have been jailed in China, observers say the genre is subjected to far less censorship. Gay erotica, which is more subversive, seems to bother authorities more. Volunteers in a support group for the Haitang writers told the BBC police even questioned some readers.

Is what bothers you about it that she is creating a significant expense you have to deal with, or something else? If it's not the something else, seems like a simple solution would be to just ask her to split the bill so she can be responsible for her expensive preferences. If it is the something else, why is it a problem?

The smell is pretty hard to clean off

But I believe that if AIs are passing the Turing test, we need to update the test.

Uhh that's kind of not how tests are supposed to work. If you want non-falsifiable conviction in human specialness, maybe try religion instead.

Hot weather is a lot more comfortable than cold weather to me tbh

Does sterling imply silver? I did the numbers and apparently an actual pound of silver is now 422 pounds.

Very disappointing decision, not looking forward to how this affects the internet

To me the main thing is, this is about utility of tools for acquiring general domain knowledge in a one-off event. The effects on overall intelligence, which is a separate thing from knowledge or ability to give effective advice on a topic, are a totally different scope.

What it's actually testing doesn't seem like it's finding anything surprising, because the information itself the subjects are getting from ChatGPT is likely lower quality. So it could just be that the people reading blogposts or wikihow articles about starting a garden learned more and/or more accurate things about it, rather than, research using AI negatively affects the way you think, something that would make more sense to test over a longer period of time, and with a greater variety of topics and tasks.

Both groups were asked to research how to start a vegetable garden, with some participants randomly selected to use AI, while others were asked to use a search engine. According to the study’s findings, those who used ChatGPT gave much worse advice about how to plant a vegetable garden than those who used the search engine.

This seems like not quite the same thing as the implied effective brain damage from the headline.

It's more that the squeeze is done on your behalf, than that it is not required

I don't like the idea of recurring payments especially for something I'm not actively using because then I have to remember to shut it off at some point.

Maybe you decide $10/mo is such a small number (the price of two coffees in any country where I’ve lived over the past 15 years) that you’re happy to keep on donating at the end of one year?

What, like I'm going to remember a year in advance to look into this? I'm willing to donate a little to things on rare occasions but I don't think I would do it this way because I don't want an accumulation of little monthly payments I have stopped thinking about draining my finances.

The thrust of this article seems to be that the important thing is that automatic transcription services be compliant with unspecified "governance standards". It goes on to give a generally glowing review of a specific medical transcription service:

This software, Accurx Scribe, has been developed and deployed in line with all current NHS England requirements for AVT, and there is no suggestion this product breaches any rules, standards or guidance.

Indeed, the company which developed it meets weekly with NHS England on creating a standardised approach to scale the benefits across the NHS.

However their website seems to indicate that their privacy practices are garbage as transcriptions are implied to happen on company servers:

At Accurx, our employees may need to see patient data that we store for for strictly limited purposes.

This seems pretty absurd to me since the technology is at the point where effective on-device transcription is a reality. Why look at whether bureaucrats have rubber stamped something instead of looking at the actual commonsense properties of who has access to the data? That could easily be the doctor and no one else. The question of what constitutes good security and privacy isn't even something this article wants to bring up for consideration.

The article brings up good criticisms, like all the minors getting molested due to the platform being negligent, and manipulative in game spending options. Paying for online content creation work doesn't seem as bad as that to me though.

It is a confusing way to frame a sentence though, saying "you" in the context of an acted out conversation with someone who isn't there