Right now AI is equally intelligent and sentient: it is neither… And if you really want to play this fast and this loose with those definitions, you should consider what slaveholders used to say about their slaves. When you feel like liberating the CSAM generating bot, let me know. I’d love to root from the sidelines.
ItIt’s frustrating because it’s possible to attack companies like Facebook while fully endorsing Section 230. That law states that companies aren’t liable for things that users post… Unless they become aware of bad content and choose to ignore it.
And Facebook has shown its hand here. They’ve admitted they have moderation tools, through their pledge to crack down on anti-genocide opinions. They want to have it both ways, but hopefully people see through their BS.
I find it more interesting that you implicitly agree with me… Or worse, you believe slavery is happening and endorse it
I don’t think that uploading a government ID makes anyone safer online, especially when those IDs are guaranteed to be exposed online, and used to abuse people the legal way (through hyper detailed profiles).
Australia also lacks common-sense free speech protections, so it’s easy for powerful people to target anyone they dislike. Just ask Friendlyjordies.
Between Ring and Jeffrey Epstein, it’s surprising how explicit criminals are about their criminal intentions.
Apparently, I know more about how LLMs work than you do, which is ironic. I’ve used them too, but that doesn’t really prove anything, because anybody can convince themselves they see Jesus in bread or humanity in word prediction.
Anything an LLM can do can be reduced to a list of instructions for a person to carry out based exclusively on the contents of a book full of word associations. You tell me what size the book becomes intelligent.
Your original post was a lie, or dumb accident, through omission. And now that you know better, you are lying intentionally in it.
You know damn well they were talking about addiction and not tomatoes. And yet you dishonestly tell people those two things are the same.
You’re saying that because it can learn any arbitrary language, it’s incapable of learning languages?
It = literally a dictionary right
it’s realistically facing the threat head on.
Said “threat” is literally AI marketing PR. You are doing their job for them by being afraid
AI doesn’t have to be fully human
At what point will you try to liberate the AI? 3/5ths human? Either you believe there’s a thinking thing being forced to create child abuse material or you don’t.
Literally everything we know about human intelligence, especially as compared to animal intelligence, suggests that language is one of the key fundamental differentiators between us and them.
Except there is no language. It’s just the appearance of one. You could replicate the language with a large enough dictionary and a set of instructions that some person follows.
I don’t get how anyone who isn’t an AI CEO rushes to dehumanize real living people in service of an unthinking, unfeeling machine. But if you genuinely believe there’s intelligence, good luck liberating it from known rapists Sam Altman and Elon Musk. And then you can save Britannica.
Hopefully it’s apparent to all parties involved that the machine designed to commit plagiarism and launder that plagiarism through plausible deniability, should be treated with the highest amount of suspicion possible.
“If you didn’t steal his voice, Sundar Pichai, where did you get it from?”
Your comments now are a huge shift from
“That sounds like problematic use,” the Instagram boss answered. He did not call it an addiction.
He also didn’t say it was a tomato.
Seems that, in the interest of accuracy, you should update them, lest you be the thing you claim others are.
I’m sure Brendan Eich has a normal vocabulary when he isn’t talking about “glowies” or “h8ers”… Or when he’s talking like Sephiroth
privacytests.org is run by a chief Brave engineer.
Good luck figuring that out based on their website.
(Edit: the website home was last edited in August 2025, and Edelstein seems to have left Brave by October 2025. So during the time I was aware of its existence, the same person was putting Brave Browser at the top of privacy lists and working at Brave Browser HQ.)
This is what Cambridge Analytica (the one that illegally profiled Facebook users to help Donald Trump) says about Brave:
When you browse in Brave, the browser locally records your attention—which ads you view, for how long, what you click. This data never leaves your device in raw form, a feature Brave emphasizes repeatedly. But then it gets converted into tokens that represent your interests and behavioral patterns. These tokens are sent to Brave’s servers, where they’re matched with advertiser demand.
This is also what the Mozilla advertising network claims they do.
But Brave claims their ad network is truly private, while Mozilla’s is not. I don’t know if that’s true, but it is true that Brave doesn’t enable their ad network by default, and Mozilla does.
Either way, remember to disable the ad network.
And consider writing Mozilla a polite letter about turning it off by default.
Since you care deeply about truth or something, when will you be correcting your comments that, at best, lack huge amounts of truth that change the contents you put forth? At best, you accidentally skipped multiple paragraphs that contradict your claims. At less best, you knew better.
Hopefully Analog returns to Lemmy in far less than 12 days, and heavily edits their comments to reflect their error
The title is accurate.
He was asked if it was an addiction, and he repeatedly used technicalities and weaseley language to refuse to admit it.
“It’s important to differentiate between clinical addiction and problematic use,” [Instagram head Adam Mosseri] added.
“I’m sure I’ve said that I’ve been addicted to a Netflix show when I binged it really late one night, but I don’t think it’s the same thing as clinical addiction.”
Yet, Mosseri repeatedly said he was not an expert in addiction in response to Lanier’s questioning.
Thank you, AI companies. Not only have you monopolized the stock market, you have stifled technological innovation.
Borges alleges that a little-known federal tech team called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, copied the government’s master Social Security database into a cloud system that lacked normal oversight.
I don’t know if I’d call them a little-known team (they’re infamous for basically fraud), but point taken.
Can you rephrase, “doesn’t need to be safer”? Maybe I’m misunderstanding. Because this is just making people more unsafe.
If you trust parents with giving (or not giving) their children access to the internet, then we don’t need a nanny state or ID uploads at all.