See, if rules were applied honestly and equally, yes.

A creature of McKinsey.

Section 230 of the dmca is designed to allow platforms to exist because people can say whatever the fuck they want. But nobody should make a machine that says things they can’t control, and if you do you need to be disciplined for such irresponsibility.

Name checks out.

If implemented, that would just ban chatbots that use large language models. It’s not a terrible idea.

What would actually happen is that so-called AI chatbot systems would try to detect if someone is from New York and then try to exclude them from receiving medical or legal advice, fail, and then get sued and then pay a small fine, over and over again forever.

I didn’t think the next-token guess machine would guess “delete my database”!

It looks like the code is mostly under GPL. Has anyone tried forking it?

Um, yay? 🤢

It’s pretty galling watching the US government retaliate against a company for not wanting to create Terminators or that surveillance thing from The Dark Knight for them.

It’s blatantly retaliatory and a violation of the spirit of the law that allows that designation, and if the law is written well and the courts are honest then it would be illegal too. You shouldn’t be able to lie and call a company an enemy of the state because they won’t build you a Torment Nexus.

And I don’t even want AI being used for half the things they already do.

Not The Onion?

:Oh no Valve made popular things that third parties can sell for crazy prices. Let’s sue --those third party platforms-- I mean Valve.

Next do WotC.

And still I’m told to be afraid of China.

Actually a pretty good idea.

Yeah, ESH. His response of editing an archive showed the site to be unreliable as an archive. DDOSing from the site as a counter to the dox attempt caused the site serious reputational harm as well.

It sucks because his site was actually more reliable than The Internet Archive.

It’s probably my favorite sci-fi series as well, yet I got a completely different read from it.

In-universe the Jihad was generally seen as a necessity. No one was really against it politically, even if they skirted around or violated it in actuality.

Leto II said: “The target of the Jihad was a machine-attitude as much as the machines. Humans had set those machines to usurp our sense of beauty, our necessary selfdom out of which we make living judgments. Naturally, the machines were destroyed.”

With all his prescience he saw humankind dying out unless he followed the Golden Path. That is a kind of tragedy, to be very nearly all-powerful and all-knowing, to know right from wrong, and to have tyranny be the only way forward.

I don’t for a second believe that Frank made the jihad as a reference to Samuel Butler because he thought it was a bad idea. If the book had wanted to communicate that it was a bad idea, it would have been presented as one at some point.

There are elements of tragedy in it, but it’s really about power and politics and human struggle, so I can’t see how there wouldn’t be.

I don’t feel like we read the same books. Your experience reading whatever books you did sounds miserable.

I read a story about politics and power, a story about the struggles of humanity to expand across the universe and survive across millennia.

I guess you read something about getting empires when you don’t have computers.

They know they can’t take the gun industry head on, so they chip at the margins. They figure hobbyists aren’t numerous enough to fight back, while the real gun owners shrug.

I honestly wonder if this might be held unconstitutional if challenged.

Well the answer is banning Arduinos, obviously 🧐

The Jihad empowered people to do independently even more than what prior generations could do with computers. I don’t think the weird cults were the only possible outcome, they just made for a better story about power and politics.

Ito should have already been banned imo.