Peacepath

Has it been set illegal to disobey “multiple commands” of a privately owned robot?

Copyright is a deprivation of freedom, and the GPL comes using this rules to turn around them. I won’t defend copyright. AI comes with more important problems, such as ecology, and creating monster private companies that have far too much power.

The tool in itself can really be usefull when well used. Many people use it and get nice results. Many people abuse it, and many people abuse themselves with it. It is true with a hammer too. I don’t think “hammer-free” is a feature, even if their are many domain in which I don’t see the point of using a hammer (and so “made with a hammer” isn’t a feature either).

Also, I can’t find any example in history of a technology that was successfully banned despite being usefull. Some have been regulated, such as nuclear industries, but that was not perfect and needed a continuous and hard strugle. The strict “no-AI” movement has already lost its battle, at most we could get regulations, maybe…

Just a quick meaningless poll, which of you feel like their gouvernment is clearly less dumb and hallucinating than AI? (and where is this great land of yours?)

Most of those who have one don’t plan to have an other one? Ok, but is that supposed to be weird?

They are the powerful people, and they know why they don’t want to be kept accountable.

My guess is we will see some less convenient models, that gives better result but a “weird” way ; and far more very convenient models, easy to use, but that generate advertisings as a result (maybe even with promo codes!)…

Remember how internet search have evolved, how youtube has became, how everything went when finance guys decided it was time for harvest…

Now look at this new field, see how they grow it… what are the odds their plan is to harvest it at some point?

We are not yet at the point LLM are so dependent on advertising and “partnerships” that they are totally biased in favor of specific brands… not yet…

Take a time to anticipate how the actual state will soon be regreted…

Oh yes we are young! And since no less than 40 years! ^^

For sugar, it seems to be more effective than cocain if you want to make some food addictive…

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000698

It is fun for me… I am a crazy fool developper and most real software professionals tell me I am dumb to think that a mistake should lead to something else than an error that kills the program (and wait for user’s restart).

So, yes, I agree with you, out it won’t happen as long as makers trust deprivating software makers (those who make softwares no one else may modify).

Imagine if you could make it watch advertising for your earnings… But yes, it would need the softwares belong to you, rather than to the washing machine’s maker…

Why not rename tap water to “gazoline”?

I do not think a ban would be efficient. It would just force those who use AI to dissimulate it. I see it a bit as drug use, banning hasn’t solved the problem ; and the countries who handled it the best were those regulating the use.

So I think we should look for a good regulation. It is more complicated to set up, but it has a chance to work.

In my mind, it should allow some projects to identify as not using any AI, and request that each project define what is their use of AI. Ideally, we could know this without opening the project (maybe thanks to a badge).

Also, shaming the use of AI only has the same aim as banning it: forcing it to grow hiden and out of control.

I would love to find good ideas for protecting digital freedom, and freedom in general. May we can assume that those who do not care about privacy aren’t using Lemmy… But I don’t know how to protect ours except by defending it as a principle that should be universal.

And so a rule to restrict freedom except for us is not a good news to me. It is not as bad as if we were concerned directly, but it is still a step backward. Isn’t it?

At some point they may need a new target, and we could be one. We are known by the general public while we are neither too much nor too powerful. And nobody would defend us beside those already targeted.

I know it is not the aim, I am concerned by how it may be used against free softwares… once more, I hope I am wrong.

Also, I am concerned by the loss of freedom involved by this policy. And I don’t think it is made to protect any one, just to restrict and control.

USA murdered anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti far before they became a significant threat to the system. What ever tries to bring freedom is so scared by american authorities… But once more, hopefully you are right and I am just overly pessimistic.

I hope you are right.

Yet do you know if the thing implemented by California would allow criminals to make sure that a kid is really a kid before they attack? Because if that is the case, and even if it needs a hack to do so, it may do the opposit of its aim.

So if you want to protect your kids from adult rated content, and you live in California, you need to buy a propietary system. Which make sure data collectors get to know all about them, and therefore doesn’t protect them… But am I the only one to see the commercial argument about to be used by MS, Apple, and others?