That’s already happening. Slightly different example, but Home Assistant has an integration that gives an LLM of your choice control over your home automation devices. Just talking to your home in natural language without having to memorize very specific phrases is honestly pretty powerful, as long as it works correctly. You can say stuff like “hey it’s a bit dark in the office”, and it just knows to either switch on the office lights, or make them brighter if they’re already on

Are you seriously equating security software running on business systems with state violence / surveillance on people? Those two things are not even remotely comparable, starting with business systems not being people that have rights

Except if you continue reading beyond your Quote, it goes on to explain why that actually doesn’t help.

Companies and their legal departments do care though, and that’s where the big money lies for Microsoft when it comes to Windows

Training and fine tuning happens offline for LLMs, it’s not like they continuously learn by interacting with users. Sure, the company behind it might record conversations and use them to further tune the model, but it’s not like these models inherently need that

And it makes sense to me that a business would leverage that data in ways to benefit themselves.

Big fat nope on that one. This is exactly what the GDPR is about. I’m giving you my data for a specific purpose, and unless I tell you otherwise, you have no fucking business using that data for anything else. Gonna be interesting to see how this one plays out in the EU.

Happened with Lone Echo for me. It’s a VR game where you’re in a space station, and you move around in zero g by just grabbing your surroundings and pulling yourself along or pushing yourself off of them. I started reflexively attempting to do that in real life for a bit after longer sessions

HTTP is not Google-controlled, you don’t need to replace that in order to build something new without Google

There’s also this part:

But Johansson’s public statement describes how they tried to shmooze her: they approached her last fall and were given the FO, contacted her agent two days before launch to ask for reconsideration, launched it before they got a response, then yanked it when her lawyers asked them how they made the voice.

Which is still not an admission of guilt, but seems very shady at the very least, if it’s actually what happened.

Except discord is not an ads-based platform? I’ve never seen a third party ad on there

where anyone thinks it’s ok or normal to recommend suicide to people

Except that’s already happening even without it being normalized, there have always been assholes that are gonna tell people to kill themselves, especially if they’ve never seen the person they’re talking to before. I don’t see how this is any different.

Literally the whole thing would not have happened without the policy.

It also wouldn’t have happened if a fucked up system wasn’t withholding actual, reasonable alternatives that the person was clearly asking for. That’s my point. Let’s fix the actual problems, rather than try to silence the symptoms.

…and did you notice how everyone was outraged by that? That incident was not an issue with assisted suicide being available, that was an issue with fucked up systems withholding existing alternatives and a tone-deaf case worker (who is not a doctor) handling impersonal communications. Maybe it’s also an issue with this kind of thing being able to be decided by a government worker instead of medical and psychological professionals. But definitely nothing about this would have been made better by assisted suicide not being generally available for people who legitimately want it, except the actual problem wouldn’t have been put into the spotlight like this.

I don’t want to create a future where, “I’ve tried everything I can to fix myself and I still feel like shit,” is met with a polite and friendly, “Oh, well have you considered killing yourself?”

Are you for real? This kind of thing is a last resort that nobody is going to just outright suggest unprompted to a suffering person, unless that person asks for it themselves. No matter how “normalized” suicide might become, it’s never gonna be something doctors will want to recommend. That’s just… Why would you even think that’s what’s gonna happen

Except the email in question is not a newsletter. Companies often use separate mail list services for important product announcements and similar things as well. Obviously there should be a process in place that removes you from these external services too when you delete your account, but I assume this is what broke down in this case

It’s not quite that simple, though. GDPR is only concerned with personally identifiable information. Answers and comments on SO rarely contain that kind of information as long as you delete the username on them, so it’s not technically against GDPR if you keep the contents.

And science fiction somehow can’t be fascist?

AI is just impossibly far away.

Sure it’s pretty far away, but it’s also moving at break neck speed. Last year low-res spaghetti-eating Will Smith body horror was the pinnacle of ai generated video, today we’re already generating videos that take at least a second look to determine that it was AI generated. The big question is at what point that improvement rate will start to level off.

I mean… It might be. Just depends on how much potential there still is to get models up to higher reasoning capabilities, and I don’t think anyone really knows that yet

I can get behind that

Ohh the “what time is it in films” argument is good, haven’t heard that one before, thanks