override367
override367 t1_jasgwrb wrote
Reply to National Park Service says ‘never push a slower friend down’ when escaping a bear by TheRealMisterNatural
you dont need to push them down, they'll occupy the bear longer if they're upright to start
override367 t1_jaamrcn wrote
Reply to comment by lord_nagleking in Their future is AI, not ours. by [deleted]
There won't be any riots, I'm pretty convinced that there's nothing that will happen in the United States that will cause people to form a collective riot. I think people will just die in their homes without fighting back
override367 t1_ja8307z wrote
Reply to comment by r3dj4ck0424 in [WP] When a god summoned your group of friends to save his magical realm, he allowed all five of you to choose your appearance in this world. The first two of your friends chose to be idealized adult versions of themselves. The next two chose fantasy races. Everyone was suprised by your choice... by Martinus_XIV
override367 t1_ja7xed7 wrote
Reply to comment by lord_nagleking in Their future is AI, not ours. by [deleted]
There will never be UBI in America, we'll have 60% unemployment within 5 years
override367 t1_ja7x5m9 wrote
Reply to comment by just-a-dreamer- in Their future is AI, not ours. by [deleted]
Call me when an AI can repair a damaged fiber cable or answer questions in a legislature meeting
override367 t1_j9pxu61 wrote
Reply to comment by nanocyto in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123
They... literally can't unless a complaint is filed, like holy shit this is the core of the case law around section 230
They can't knowingly put out material that is illegal or would get them in trouble, but they bear no liability if they don't know, until such time as they are made aware of it
The reason 230 was created was that this standard only applied to websites that exercised no moderation. IE: if the algorithm was literally a random number generator and you had an equal chance of it recommending you acooking video or actual child pornography, Youtube would be 100% in the clear without 230 as long as they removed the latter after being notified. 230 was necessary because Prodigy, like Youtube, had moderation and content filtering, and any moderation at all meant that they were tacitly endorsing something that was on their service, therefore, they were liable
This is the entire reason the liability shield was created. Section 230 means websites bear no liability in essentially any circumstance other than willful negligence as long as they didn't upload the content, SCOTUS is only considering this case because they aren't judges, they are mad wizards and this is calvinball, not law
override367 t1_j9oplum wrote
Reply to comment by Bacch in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123
Your argument is asinine, if you buy something from target and get automatically enrolled in their mailing list that isn't a good reason to go to the supreme court and demand retail stores be banned from existing, it's fucking insane they're even hearing this case
In the case of youtube Autoplay is a feature that comes with it, just don't use youtube
override367 t1_j9nji5j wrote
Reply to comment by Bacch in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123
you can turn off autoplay you know, you don't have to burn the entire internet down
shit you can just not use youtube if you want
override367 t1_j9mccsz wrote
Reply to comment by skillywilly56 in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123
What the hell are you talking about? Google removes terrorist content as soon as it is reported, the case before us is more like a book in the back (that isn't even illegal) which has a bunch of pictures of US soldiers who've been tortured by the Vietcong, and is against the bookstore's internal code of conduct to sell, and offended someone who sued even though they had a button to delete the book and others like it from their own personally curated section of the bookstore forever
I also want to point out that a good deal of terrorist content is legal and covered under the first amendment. Not like bomb making or whatever, but their ideology can absolutely be spoken aloud in America, google gets plenty of pressure from it's advertisers to remove such content
Now, right wing hate speech, not so much, the algorithm encourages it because it favors engagement and highly emotional rage bait encourages engagement, none of this has anything to do with section 230 however, and yet here we are
override367 t1_j9mc1ut wrote
Reply to comment by nanocyto in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123
Are you just going to ignore everything else I typed?
There is no way to present content that doesn't favor some weighted position, and with 3.7 million videos a day the service can't exist if you're just blindly putting it out alphabetically
that would be, again, like a book store being forced to just randomly put books out front in the order they are received and not being able to sort them by section
override367 t1_j9knfx2 wrote
Reply to comment by Shalidar13 in [WP] It finally happened, a sentient AI took over the world's nukes and killer drones. However, instead of destroying humanity, it starts enforcing international law, much to the consternation of the nations. by Slayer_Jesse
I feel like an AI capable of seeing the picture that big wouldn't focus on being the best cop, it would focus on taking out the causes of the problems
override367 t1_j9klp0t wrote
Reply to comment by HeadLeg5602 in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123
Don't be an idiot, the supreme court is not the tool for that
you're posting on reddit for fuck's sake, if you don't think 230 should exist, stop using things that only exist because of it
override367 t1_j9kl948 wrote
Reply to comment by Brief_Profession_148 in Google case at Supreme Court risks upending the internet as we know it by dustofoblivion123
I mean, they do under 230, they absolutely fucking do, until SCOTUS decides they can't
Even pre-230 the algorithm wouldn't be the problem, after all, book stores were not liable for the content of every book they sold, even though they clearly had to decide which books are front facing
The algorithm front facing a video that should be removed is no different than a book store putting a book ultimately found to be libelous on a front facing endcap, the bookstore isn't expected to have actually read the book and vetted its content, merely having a responsibility to remove it should that complaint be made known
override367 t1_j8e1lux wrote
Companies: Get demand surge during lockdowns
Also Companies when they don't get the same sales after lockdown: Suprisedpikachu
Capitalism is so fucking stupid, every corporation is like one of those people with no long term memory
override367 t1_j6wy5yx wrote
Reply to comment by Alkans_bookshelf in An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyers shut it down. : NPR by persianphilosopher
most might be an exaggeration but a huge percentage of every corporate hierarchy I've been a part of is full of random vice presidents and middle managers that are totally unnecessary
override367 t1_j6twfa5 wrote
Reply to comment by Stupid_Guitar in An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyers shut it down. : NPR by persianphilosopher
Yes, because artists are scum and lawyers are angels, obviously
override367 t1_j6twa54 wrote
Reply to comment by CMG30 in An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyers shut it down. : NPR by persianphilosopher
most professional work is just busy work that exists to justify itself anyway
override367 t1_j6tw4td wrote
Reply to comment by mvcv in An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyers shut it down. : NPR by persianphilosopher
as the article shows, you cant do it because lawyers will sue you
now if this company had hired a lawyer themselves and the AI was just "providing legal information" and not legal advice, that might be different
override367 t1_j6tscnw wrote
Reply to An AI robot lawyer was set to argue in court. Real lawyers shut it down. : NPR by persianphilosopher
I still think AI has the potential to be a great boon for normal people who cant afford a lawyer for filling out paperwork and legal responses and the like
override367 t1_j6ovqw7 wrote
I assume Canada is like the USA where your economic superiors are above you in the legal hierarchy and that's why 1. the damages were so low against the supervisor, and 2. the supervisor isn't facing criminal charges
override367 t1_j6k6bq1 wrote
Reply to Private UBI by SantoshiEspada
I wouldn't write off socialist programs like UBI yet, once the boomers die the political landscape will be vastly different
override367 t1_j64vl34 wrote
I asked chatgpt how to make a new type of cleaner that will solve oil spills and I'm just adding the Cobalt to the plutonium core no
override367 t1_j41nuav wrote
Reply to USC School of Social Work removes term 'field work' because it may offend 'descendants of slavery' by wxcode
People...still...work in fields...and did so long before slavery
override367 t1_j3xwzex wrote
Reply to comment by CletusDSpuckler in Roomba testers feel misled after intimate images ended up on Facebook by deep_blue003v
help me step-roomba I'm stuck
override367 t1_jdcwap9 wrote
Reply to [Image] Feel your feelings…. by DelusionalWeed
I thought safe said cafe and I was like "yeah I could use a trip to a cafe"