The entire point of this is that owners wouldn’t need to pay attention. Their pets collar will just blare simple words/phrases at them and sometimes it’ll be right
It’ll almost always say “feed me” and the pet will almost always want that, so it’s gonna feel like it’s working.
It helps pets communicate, but only pets who have bad/lazy owners.
It doesn’t need to translate, just provide definitive answers and even the dumbest dog or cat would learn how to make the different sounds, and then what they mean.
It’ll help pets communicate, but only for people who don’t pay attention. It won’t magically lead to deeper meaning
And absolutely doesn’t need AI.
The biological organisms can adapt, the tech doesn’t need to.
No one is debating that sometimes Muslims vote progressive or something progressives vote for Muslims. The answer will never be 100% either way.
You said you wanted to talk about your link, but you’ve got the location wrong you don’t understand it was conservative politicians elected by conservative voters and I’m struggling to think of any excuse for why you think that link is valid
I’ve sure as shit wasted enough time as you as an individual though
I just wanted to make sure your one example was over a decade ago about the city council for a “city” of less than 30k people…
Maybe if you’re nice, we can cover who actually voted for them and what their political leanings were (hint: conservative, not progressive).
But honestly there’s a lot more after that, and I don’t think I’m gonna hang around long enough for you to understand, I’m probably just gonna give up on helping you.
You might recognize the CEO Bannon took over from, is the child actor that played Young Gordan Bombay in the Mighty Ducks…
And honestly, I’m like 99% sure it’s what started crypto in the first place. The oligarchs got a hit of digital money they control with almost zero oversight, and a couple years later crypto started popping up.
That article is 2008, and the first Bitcoin was created January 2009.
Literally the one that excelled at the online pivot.
He’s basically the old white guy from American History X, except because our timeline is extra crazy, he got involved with Chinese WoW gold farms and realized online games was even easier to recruit than webpages.
Like, he’s absolutely a piece of shit, but decades ago before the alcohol turned his brain completely to mush, he put in the first steps to getting us here. Not just politically but socially/culturally.
He was extremely effective, but he wouldn’t have been if he was forced to do all that shit in person where he could be punched in the face.
Steve Bannon hanging out with 10 year olds on a playground sets off alarm bells, but do it from behind a WoW avatar and it doesn’t stand out.
Again tho, it’s not the online games, its not the in person DnD, not the punk shows, not skateparks, not social media…
Those are all just places, and if Nazis are tolerate in any places, they set up shop and start recruiting. The only way to get rid of it and to keep it gone, is constantly being aware in every space that some day a Nazi might show up, and if they do the most important thing is that they leave. If everyone does that, it works. But everyone has to do it, they can’t have a safe space because they’ll only use it to make everywhere else less safe.
It’s not social media itself, it’s social media companies tolerating the intolerant.
Back in the day nazis recruited at punk shows, so when they showed up you punched them in the face and they left. Fucking easiest 2 minute conflict resolution ever and it kept them check for decades while letting teenage punks have a valid target for their rage.
Then daytime TV (Springer, Ricky lake, that shit) started bringing them on, and letting them get their message out, and they capitalized on that with early webpages and forums. Creating the same recruitment pipeline they use today, because people can’t physically punch them in the face online.
The mods/admins have to do that with bans.
When they don’t, it’s for the same reason as Springer. They want the conflict because conflict attracts eyeballs. But all it does is help nazis recruit.
The goal is obviously for every individual in public to be identified 24/7, not just an ID, but a link to a Palintar style file. They click on you in a video and get all your data and a map of everywhere you’ve went and everyone you talk to since the program started.
The big lie tho is they say it will stop crime, it won’t stop a single one. It will just do cops job if they investigate something, and that’s very likely to not even be a real crime.
It’s 9/11 and TSA all over again, none of this makes us safer, but this time they’re not even trying to trick us into it, they’re just doing it.
We need a nationwide movement not to vote for anyone, anywhere, that every backs these things.
Make it abundantly clear that the campaign contributionsbribes will cost them their jobs. No politician actually wants Flock, they just want money Flock pays them.
You put something hot at the bottom of the ocean, as it heats the water, that water rises.
Cold water comes in from the sides, and the process repeats.
A geothermal vent does way more than a data center does and is a huge ecological benefit.
Obviously there’s better things to put down there then a data center, but this is literally the only place a data center is t hurting the planet simply by existing.
Hell, build near an existing vent and harvest it’s heat for energy why piggybacking on the existing currents and you can literally get “free” compute power with no ecological downside.
This tech won’t end with this data enter, it’s just where the money is currently at and that drives our research these days.
…
Like, it would probably take a lot more typing for people to get how huge this is, but we’ll be lucky if we’re still alive to see the real benefits of what was developed for this project
No, the article says their problems are with surveillance and automated weapons…
Which are valid concerns for almost everyone…
Which is why everyone should have a say in it, and not just the people the AI companies choose to employ.
If their employees get to decide it, they just won’t have any employees that are willing to say AI shouldn’t be used for that. Employment would be predicated on saying AI should have no limits.
Which is why if this happened, it would overall be a bad thing.
Why do people keep posting AI articles without understanding them?
Or are you really advocating for the fix being a couple thousand tech ros making the calls for everyone instead of a handful of techbros?
Even if this happened, people like Musk would just pay his employees more so they say it’s ok. If they won’t say it’s ok for any amount of money, they’re not employed anymore.
Why would anyone whose job is training AI, say we shouldn’t have AI?
It gives the illusion that it’s ok, without changing anything.
The solution is the democratic process, not slightly enlarging the circle of unelected oligarchs making decisions for us.
Like, if these workers gave a fuck, they wouldn’t have taken these jobs to start with,they’re not gonna save us anymore than people working in a coal mine will save us from climate change
The entire point of this is that owners wouldn’t need to pay attention. Their pets collar will just blare simple words/phrases at them and sometimes it’ll be right
It’ll almost always say “feed me” and the pet will almost always want that, so it’s gonna feel like it’s working.
It helps pets communicate, but only pets who have bad/lazy owners.