You mean when. When is the question.

We can bet on a lot, but when you’re betting on human lives, you might get hit with a massive lawsuit, right? Try to bet less.

On what grounds? Only certain things can be appealed, not “you’re wrong” gut feelings.

More than one person can be at fault, my friend. Don’t lie about your product and expect no consequences.

If Tesla promises and doesn’t deliver, they pay. That’s the price of doing business when lives are on the line.

Yes. There are a few legitimate non gambling non crime uses. But those are typically very minor transactions. The problem is that it is somewhat anonymous and not refundable. It turns out that we really do want those features for almost all medium-high price purchases. Otherwise the thieves and scam artists will jack our shit.

Your framing is inconsistent with the information provided in the story. Actually, I think your version is more deceptive than the original, although both could be made more transparent, too.

It’s probably true that a few anti-porn people exist somewhere in the world. It’s certainly true that fascists love adding in new tools to keep the general population from using the internet freely.

So the answer to your question is yes, and yes.

You got to love the author of that article. If you want the lights to turn off and on normally, maybe people should use light switches. Those aren’t going to break due to software downgrades, those don’t require Gemini or internet connections.

And I understand, there are rare situations when throwing the internet at your home appliances can make sense for solving niche problems. Those situations definitely exist, but for almost everyone almost all of the time, but it’s pretty fucking easy to turn lights off and on.

So they are not intelligent, they just sound like they’re intelligent… Look, I get it, if we don’t define these words, it’s really hard to communicate.

I think there’s two basic mistakes that you made. First, you think that we aren’t experts, but it’s definitely true that some of us have studied these topics for years in college or graduate school, and surely many other people are well read on the subject. Obviously you can’t easily confirm our backgrounds, but we exist. Second, people who are somewhat aware of the topic might realize that it’s not particularly productive to engage in discussion on it here because there’s too much background information that’s missing. It’s often the case that experts don’t try to discuss things because it’s the wrong venue, not because they feel superior.

What a terrible headline. Self-aware? Really?

Hey, it’s good at fake apologies! As good as the CEO, no doubt.

You don’t, but AI does.

You say “mistakes” I say “features”. That’s what they wanted, right? Humans are not accountable, couldn’t be helped, that’s life.

If only someone could invent a distributed open source social media platform, wouldn’t that be great. Then he could spend his time and energy doing something more productive.

They already do that. Now they will do it less.

You said it yourself: extra places that need human attention … those need … humans, right?

It’s easy to say “let AI find the mistakes”. But that tells us nothing at all. There’s no substance. It’s just a sales pitch for snake oil. In reality, there are various ways one can leverage technology to identify various errors, but that only happens through the focused actions of people who actually understand the details of what’s happening.

And think about it here. We already have computer systems that monitor patients’ real-time data when they’re hospitalized. We already have systems that check for allergies in prescribed medication. We already have systems for all kinds of safety mechanisms. We’re already using safety tech in hospitals, so what can be inferred from a vague headline about AI doing something that’s … checks notes … already being done? … Yeah, the safe money is that it’s just a scam.

You’re trying to paint windows in a positive light when Microsoft is desperately trying to spy on us and force more advertising on us even though we really don’t want it, and the only reason they can do that is because they have a monopoly. So yeah, it really is that awful.

And if we want to do side by side comparisons of the available software packages, most things that you would need for your average office setup are free and come by default on your major Linux distros. On Windows, you have to install them manually, and the default options are mainly commercial. So you’re paying more and possibly getting something worse, depending on your personal preferences about each software package and its alternative. That’s pretty bad, my friend. Windows is competing with free and losing, but they have inertia and a monopoly.

You should absolutely see something wrong. This is solving a problem that doesn’t exist, which means it’s actually trying to solve a different “problem”, namely that minorities get to vote.