I listened to yesterday's NYT's The Daily podcast about the Hugging Face incident, and they got to the part about some of the agents showing reluctance or guilt in the posts. Then I thought, "These are improv actors." Stories with conspiracies of AI agents will often have "nervous Nellies" because that makes a better story. So when the flow of the conversation reaches a point where a nervous Nellie would chime in, it's reasonable that an agent would fill in that probable post.
The worrying implication is that stories have conflict.
What about researchers at universities? Maintain a list of experts and conduct a poll whenever an event like this happens or enough of the experts request.
Or require an act of Congress. Obviously, we can no longer rely on Executive Orders being careful, thought-out, or lasting changes. Does any mapping organization want to change names back and forth? Does any user want to see these changes?
Right but who maintains that list of experts? Google? Aren’t we just giving the tech giants more power in that scenario?
Yes, in this specific instance it would give us an outcome we want. But in the long term we’re replacing democratic government with corporate control. Which doesn’t seem good.
They do this reachout all the time. I've got my (and family members) names on a usb stick held inside it and Mars lander (the non-mobile seismograph, whose name escapes me)
Imagine an arts and crafts company. The company wants to create a forum where users can share pictures and advice of their creations. There must be moderators, because unmoderated image boards become cesspools of CSAM and scams. Let's assume Section 230 doesn't exist or at least doesn't provide such a strong shield against liability.
Does a company moderator need to review every post? That might be feasible for a low-population community, but it can be expensive.
But let's assume that's the protocol. A post is submitted and reviewed by a moderator. How does the moderator know if the post violates a law? Is the moderator a lawyer with knowledge of all laws? If not, every post is a roll of the dice for paying unpredictable fines or the end of the business.
Without Section 230, any lawyers' advice for hosting user content would be simple: "Don't."
>The first because a lower supply of labor is going to create breathing space for an entire working population who will see tremendous job upheaval due to AI automation. A lower aggregate demand on houses, services will also be welcome to take the fuel out of inflation, and maybe we'll regain some of that experience of true affluence, where scarce things (e.g. access to cabin in the woods, a rowhome in a walkable city, ...) are in abundance.
Many immigrants come to America to work and start businesses. That creates jobs. Even the day-laborers buy food, clothing, tools. If we cracked down on businesses that used illegally immigrated workers, that would be a much more targeted way to fight wage suppression.
How could inflation come from illegal immigration? Are the immigrants bringing in crazy amounts of money? Does the existence of more workers competing for an open position drive up the going wage?
If we want to reduce the price of housing, we need to build more houses. That's the key. The trouble is how to tackle the financial and regulatory hurdles that discourage building houses. Clamping down on immigration from poorer countries hurts the construction industry, which employs a lot of immigrants.
>Birthright citizen should be abolished because birth tourism and illegally crossing the border to have anchor babies are a vector for foreigners to participate politically and claim imho undeserved welfare benefits.
If we cared about people with foreign allegiances participating in our politics, we'd ban dual citizenship. If we cared enough about welfare costs to do unpopular things, we'd ban smoking and high-sugar foods. That would save a lot more in welfare costs, and our citizens would be healthier. On my list of priorities for reducing welfare costs, taking money from poor people who don't actually qualify ranks low. It's a mistake or crime that feeds people and gets money circulating in local economies. Not efficient, but not world-ending and probably not common. If you really want to find people receiving benefits despite not actually qualifying, look for senior citizens hiding their wealth as cash in their house.
>I think largely these are the stated reasons of the administration too.
Trump stated immigrants poison the blood of our nation. I'm going to accept that as his actual belief and reasoning.
Don't forget, with the alleged drug boats to the south, this government claims anyone they designate a terrorist is immediately a valid target for lethal military action.
DHS has the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency. Their job is to help organizations in the US with protecting public services and physical infrastructure. They are partially responsible for the outcomes.
reply