All it means is that the government cannot arrest you for saying somethnig

Actually, it means a lot more than that.

It means you’re entitled to a platform - that you can say things into a microphone to a large crowd gathered for any reason on federal land that’s open to individuals… including to talk about how other humans are deserving of hate. We don’t owe them a space to spread hate speech. We can do better.

like explicitly excluding yelling fire in a theater sent us down a worse path, I’m sure

Absolutely nothing about this is surprising to me in the least. What is surprising, however, is how much people recognize this is a serious problem that seems to continue to get worse, and yet people will insist that free speech is more important. We’ve placed restrictions on yelling fire in a theater when there is none, because it causes harm to society to do it. Why, similarly, can we not place restrictions on obviously hateful and intolerant speech? Certainly those which have larger platforms and opportunity to sew this intolerance and erode democracy should have more scrutiny, no?

Unfortunately the world has become so divorced from reality it no longer matters whether something is true. It only matters whether you can convince someone it looks or feels true. Management wants subtle changes made by a hallucination engine because it doesn’t matter if they fail, they still get their golden parachute and move on to another company they get to ruin 🤷‍♀️

I love that it hinges on the affordable care act, and not trans rights, a bigger poison pill than I’ve ever seen in a fucking funding bill

As someone who basically doesn’t use linkedin anymore, and also doesn’t particularly care if they train a terrible AI model on my information, can someone explain to me why should I bother to turn off this setting (I have not logged into linkedin in months)?

I’m not writing anyone off, but historically speaking women have not done well as candidates 😞

The right as a political machine didn’t bat an eye when democratic government officials were assassinated. They also have completely ignored the facts of just about everything and inserted their own ideology or fantasy about what’s true and what’s not. What do you think “shouting from the rooftops” is going to accomplish here? This same nonsense has repeated itself multiple times with the attempted Trump assassinations and with other figures on the right. 99 times out of 100 it’s a young straight white conservative male behind shootings, yet there is never introspection on this issue. I cannot imagine this will change the minds of any significant number of those on the right. As Kirk himself said, this is the price of business.

given that there was no equivalent when I was a kid

inside jokes

Fascinating article. I don’t really agree with half of what he finds aesthetically pleasing, but I do approve of the idea that it would be nice to have a little bit more diversity in exterior appearance of high density housing buildings.

This is just one of the many far reaching effects of the disinformation age we are headed into. It would not surprise me if, in the future (assuming humanity survives our climate crisis), this period of time will be contrasted with the middle ages as periods of great loss of human knowledge.

For what it’s worth, a lot of what the article is bringing up isn’t particularly new. Fake studies are nothing new, but the scope of them will definitely increase. While it is manpower intensive, this is easily solved by peer review. In fact, perhaps ironically, AI could be used to do a first-pass review before and summarize what seems like it was AI created versus human created and send that along to a human.

Corporation funded studies designed to get around regulation or to promote their product, on the other hand, is something we’ve been dealing with for quite some time and an issue we haven’t really solved as a society. Anyone who works in science knows how to spot these from a mile away because they’re nearly always published in tiny journals (low citation score) which either don’t do peer review or have shady guidelines. The richer companies have the money to simply run 40 or 50 studies concurrently and toss the data from every one that doesn’t have the outcome they’re looking for (in essence repeatedly rolling a d20 until they get a 20) which allows them to get their findings into a bigger journal because it’s all done above board. Some larger publishing journals have created guidelines to try and fight this, but ultimately you need meta-analyses and other researchers to disprove what’s going on, and that’s fairly costly.

Also, as an aside- this belongs in the science community more than tech in my opinion.

I’m fairly certain that this is what’s being cited. The journalism, unfortunately, is quite poor and it’s hard to confirm precisely what article she was referring to.

Disgusting typical techbro behavior, I hate it.

The president really made an executive order about preventing woke AI? Humanity is cooked fam

That’s going to take some research and a rewrite to get it looking like those it was trained to match. You need to be adding synonyms and dependencies because the AIs lack any model of how we actually do IT, they only see correlations between words.

Very simple solution: ask AI to rewrite your resume for specific job applications or fields.

As someone who lives in SF, yup. I’m sick and tired of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The only positive about them is that for confusing measures, they make it clear which direction to vote - always against them.

FYI this was already posted to technology, here.

Having seen how so many average people are using AI, I’m sadly not surprised that people are just going with whatever is up there, even when it is wrong.

It’s almost entirely medically irrelevant, and the times in which it becomes medically relevant you need to go to a doctor to manage the transition and they can explain to you the times where you need to disclose it (practically never).

consultant-approved campaign

The same consultants who have repeatedly said the democrats need to keep pulling to the right. It’s entirely unsurprising that doing exactly what they don’t advise is what’s winning over people, lmao.