azl

Look at this in the same light as the 2nd amendment: bearing arms was more compatible with society when the “arms” were mechanically limited in their power/capability. Gun laws have matured to some degree since then, restricting or banning higher powered weaponry available today.

Maybe slander/defamation protections are not agile or comprehensive enough to curtail the proliferation of AI-generated material. It is certainly much easier to malign or impersonate someone now than ever before.

I really don’t think software will ever be successfully restricted by the government, but the hardware that is behind it might end up with some form of firmware-based lockout technology that limits AI capabilities to approved models providing a certificate signed by the hardware maker (after vetting the submission for legally-mandated safety or anti-abuse features).

But the horse has already left the barn. Even the current level of generative AI technology is fully capable of fooling just about anyone, and will never be stopped without advancements in AI detection tools or some very aggressive changes to the law. Here come the historic GPU bans of the late 20’s!

I love that this sounds like a threat and I cannot stop laughing

I just wanted to thank you for your reply. It was so well written and easily digested I feel like I got hours worth of research out of it. God bless Lemmy.

My 2 cents (more like $2 now that I wrote it) is that no car made in the past 20 years can be maintained to the degree older cars could, and electric cars will suffer from the same ephemeral lifespan as all modern autos do. Electric or not, makers will continue to abandon vehicle platforms regularly and aggressively in order to ensure no single component or technology becomes affordable or obtainable outside of a manufacturer-sponsored limited warranty plan. And they will lobby against our attempts to extend the service life of electric drivetrains in the name of safety or design secrecy.

The ads also show users interacting with their physical and virtual environments smoothly, without difficulty seeing around them or spatial positioning glitches, which does not at all describe the current state of Meta OS. I’ve been a Oculus/Meta user for 10 years and the UI is definitely not an Apple experience. (p.s. I hate Apple and love Quest 3)

Wearing a Quest while working on a car sounds like a great way to lose a finger, or destroy the part I’m trying to install/repair. I can feel the frustration bubbling up when I imagine trying to assemble furniture while wearing a headset clamped to my face with a super tight headstrap. Man I’m so pissed now.

As someone who has read these terms in passing but is unfamiliar with them: What the fuck?

But IT is not marketing, which is the subject of this discussion…

Calling Meta “Facebook” tells me all I need to know about the engagement that random opinion blog will attract.

The service described in the article has nothing to do with courts, regulation, enforcement, or the legal system. It is used by city maintenance to identify elements of public property in need of attention, such as abandoned vehicles and potholes in the asphalt. It is being adapted to identify accumulations of trash and other indicators of illegal camping which are important to maintainers of public spaces.

This is part of the problem with using terms like “homeless” to describe the occupants of an illegal campsite. There are numerous reasons one may choose to camp in a public space.

• Some are truly struggling to regain their financial footing and either the assistance programs are not helpful or they are unable to utilize them.
• Some are sick which causes them to be unable to participate functionally in society, and they have “fallen through the cracks” of services designed to support them.
• Some reject housing in favor of a lifestyle that demands less effort or accountability – possibly in service of addiction, which ties into #2 above.

All members of society should have access to shelter (or a safe campsite, if that is our preference) and our basic needs met. As members of society, we shall follow laws which describe, for very good reasons, why we cannot simply erect a camping tent in a city park.

The problem with ignoring campsites is plummeting hygiene and safety. Waste is generated by day to day life and must be collected or eliminated. As campers accumulate and abandon the implements of a semi-permanent hovel: furniture, bedding, tarps, etc., the surrounding area transforms into a dumping site.

The technology described in the article already identifies potholes and illegal parking. It does not identify people or their race. Surely it could evolve into something with more potential for abuse, but in its current capacity, it is quite a neutral tool.

We have collected a lot of data on the “ignore and do nothing” solution – the outcome is a scientific certainty. Using tools like this to measure progress (for better or worse) seems like something that would help generate support for other solutions, such as extensive expansion of low-cost/no-cost housing services.