I don’t necessarily support this, but I feel like this at least adds a barrier to a single person setting up hundreds of bot accounts easily. Similar to locking your doors, it just adds friction to those that would otherwise not put a lot of effort in. People can still break into your house/run a bot farm, but this makes it just that much more difficult. Again, I don’t really support doing this, and it’s definitely not being done for user’s benefit, but it will likely have some impact on botting.

She didn’t stand for the pledge so her teacher told her to go back to her own country, and apparently the settlement is:

As a part of the recent settlement, the Plymouth-Canton community schools district has pledged to provide diversity, sensitivity, and first amendment training for staff. The district has also agreed not to punish DK, remove any indication from school files that suggest her protest was inappropriate and provide needed counseling.

I understand that it needs to be officially written out, but it’s unbelievable to me that part of the settlement is that they won’t punish her. Yea, obviously you shouldn’t because she did nothing wrong. I know teachers unions can affect the outcomes of these, but that teacher should not be employed in a school. They are racist and I don’t know how students of color or immigrant students in general are meant to feel safe in their class.

Guy work in IT and spent 100k to pay devs to make an app so people can talk to his tuned ChatGPT? I hope anyone who has hired him checks his work. That does not bode well for his work product.

Another case from the article:

“I still use AI, but very carefully,” he says. “I’ve written in some core rules that cannot be overwritten. It now monitors drift and pays attention to overexcitement. There are no more philosophical discussions. It’s just: ‘I want to make a lasagne, give me a recipe.’ The AI has actually stopped me several times from spiralling. It will say: ‘This has activated my core rule set and this conversation must stop.’

What’s weird to me is they now recognize AI will lie to you but somehow think they can prompt it not to? Your rules can be “overwritten” because they do not exist to ChatGPT. It does not know what words mean.

This was only done because the editors pushed to minimize AI involvement. There’s a comment here already mentioning that: https://lemmy.world/comment/22826863

The images I am referring to are likely distinct from the ones in the title as they are from his iPhone and Google is who reported him. Regardless in the article it says the detective looked at one of the Google reported images. Whether they just referenced a known hash I don’t know for sure, but I think it’s pretty well known that FAANG scan basically all images for CSAM nowadays.

The detective alleges that that photograph and others she examined appeared to be stored in a folder on the iPhone titled “Girls I Drugged And Raped.”

Not sure how I didn’t hear of this already. Apparently it’s not necessarily a breathalyzer, but the proposals include a camera facing the driver to monitor them and passive monitoring of the air in the car.

I don’t drunk drive and barely even drink, but that’s horrifying. I can’t believe this went under the radar for me.

More garbage that is going to break and cost thousands of dollars to fix in addition to all the violations of privacy. Cars are already advertising to people. Can you imagine if they put a camera inside the vehicle? Why not invest in public transit? That’s a great way to decrease impaired drivers of all stripes as well as help people in general. All this does is funnel more money into auto makers. I am so upset that this is the first I’m hearing of it.

I mean, it’s sad that they were more concerned about a lawsuit than the health of the people involved, but that’s just showing that this sort of thing is effective. The exec wanted the request approved so that this very thing didn’t happen, but it was apparently too late. The whole thing is very sad but I’m glad that’s the position the execs had over “lol, no”. The exec wanted it approved so it seems like the request was denied by someone lower down and by the time the exec was informed there was nothing to be done

I’m coming from a US centric place, but I’m pretty sure the N word is generally used to mean a very specific word which is notably not the Spanish word for black. Do people call the Spanish word the N word too in other countries?

I’m not trying to make a case that Israel is somehow the good guy or anything, just that my statement is not related to the fact it’s a Jewish state. Israel is an apartheid state committing genocide. I was just making clear have no issue with Jewish people in general. Lots of Zionists on Lemmy so I was making that clear before it got derailed by bad faith actors. I am not following the Epstein thing that closely because it disgusts me to the point it makes me physically ill, so I can’t chime in about it at all other than to say it’s disgusting beyond reason.

Shapiro backs Israel and Tucker doesn’t. Trump is heavily aligned with Israel to the point that the war with Iran is basically because of them. I think Shapiro is safe so long as Israel sees him as useful.

Not that it should need to be said, but I’m not supporting an antisemitic conspiracy about a new world order or anything. It’s just that Trump and his people are dumb and easy to manipulate and several countries, including Israel, are taking advantage of that. That’s just normal country geopoliticing, not related to any religion or ethnicity.

Wow. What a terrible idea. There was a woman who was sent to jail in a different state for several months and lost her house, car, and dog because AI misidentified her and cops didn’t give a fuck. Cops should need a warrant for facial recognition at the very least, if it’s allowed at all. Can’t wait for “give me a smile” to be codified into law.

Considering there was a film festival just recently making the argument that the art isn’t political, it’s nice to see his statement.

If you sandbox anything it’ll be safer than otherwise. Not really sure what you’re suggesting. I would still want the code reviewed regardless of the safety measures in place.

I wrote a program that basically auto organizes my files for me. Even if an AI was sandboxed and only had access to the relevant files and had no delete privileges, I would still want the code reviewed. Otherwise it could move a file into a nonsensical location and I would have to go through all possible folders to find it. Someone would have to make the interfaces/gateways and also review the code. There’s no way to know how it’s working, so there’s no way to know IF it’s working, until the code is reviewed. Regardless of how detailed you prompt, AI will generate something that possibly (currently very likely) needs to be adjusted. I’m not going to take an AIs raw output and run it assuming the AI did it properly, regardless of the safety measures.

While I personally don’t like AI, I do think it is changing things. I don’t think it’s ever safe to run code without oversight from an actual programmer, but AI will likely affect the number of programmers being hired in a non negligible way.

I’m not a lawyer, and I did mention in my above comment that everyone deserves the best defense possible, but I’m pretty sure you can say “this is an injustice”, “my clients and I will appeal”, many other things which are not explicitly stating that they are innocent after literally watching one of them rape an unconscious child. This was not in court, and I understand the court of public opinion plays a part in cases, but you’ll have to forgive me if I think this is beyond what is required of a good defense attorney.

Also, I’m pretty sure there are cases (like diddy) where there is a reliance on at least some admission of guilt, and the presumption is that though you may be guilty of a crime, it’s not as severe or deserving of the punishment the prosecution is seeking.

For those also curious, these are not the property brothers who were prominently featured on HGTV.

Also, there is apparently video evidence of a rape of an unconscious underage girl and their lawyers still had the gall to say:

“We believe in our clients’ innocence,” Marc Agnifilo, a lawyer for Oren Alexander, said after the verdict. “We’re going to keep fighting.” U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni set sentencing for Aug. 6. The brothers, incarcerated since their 2024 arrests, face up to life in prison.

I believe that everyone is entitled to the best defense possible, but that is a ridiculous statement to make given the evidence.

That behaviour would probably have the opposite effect that the people who created this rule would want.

Why are you suggesting that? Ignoring capitalistic incentives, the rule is theoretically in place to increase safety. Your decision would have no impact on safety so I’m not sure why you think it would have the opposite effect.

Uber is not society. It is making a decision it thinks will increase its revenue. It is indeed a sign of a lack of progress, but the people responsible for the progress you want are us. I’m not chiming in on the policy itself, but your comment makes it feel like you are not as committed to the progress you want made. There are men in this thread saying that they hate what women have to put up with, but understand it and want them to feel safe. That’s not what I’m getting from your comment. If I had to choose between being in a forest with you vs them I’d choose them because it seems like you’re more concerned with how you’re perceived than how other people are actually affected. I can imagine that being viewed as a predator must be uncomfortable, but women are often viewed as prey and that’s not great either. I don’t want to start playing at oppression olympics, but the fact that a post about a move to theoretically increase women’s safety has you responding about your feelings as a perceived predator makes it seem like you don’t think we as a society should do things that make women feel safer because it makes you feel like you’re being viewed as a predator.

I for the most part don’t mind being around male strangers, but the ones that give me extra room on a sidewalk or in a bar are undoubtedly the ones I’m most comfortable around and ones I’d be most likely to engage with. Not because the others make me feel unsafe but because they make me feel safe. It’s like if you invite someone into your house you can offer them food or a drink to help them feel comfortable or you can just not. You’re not necessarily a bad person for not offering something, just potentially perceived as less inviting. Society is still seen and felt as the dominion of men for a lot of people, so when men go out of their way to make space for us, it signals that they are friendly and welcoming and want us to feel safe. I think if you want to work on that divide, the best thing to do is make the women you’re around feel safe. It’s unfortunate, but it’s up to us to destigmatize our own identities. I just don’t think your comment does that.

Per RAINN, 57% of perpetrators are white. I’ll charitably imagine you’re attempting to point out perceived hypocrisy in gender vs race selection, but you’re perpetuating racist and xenophobic stereotypes. White men commit rape at more than twice the rate of black men, and naturally born citizens commit crimes at rates higher than both documented and undocumented immigrants.

If you want to make the case that it’s a discriminatory policy, you’re welcome to do so, but tying it to false perceptions of race is probably not the best move. It’s coming off as reactionary at best.