To be fair your dietician/healthcare professional might also be disappointed, but you're ultimately right, just like with college nobody else cares. Of course, that was already implied from the onset. I find it intriguing that you've only just come to that realization.
It’s interesting to me that people find so much meaning in their jobs. To me work is just the means to obtain the money I need to actually live my life.
As someone who has spent my currently almost 20-year career building stuff in companies - and whole verticals - I don't care about at all, I agree mostly. As long as they're still going to pay me (GIANT hopeful assumption there) I'll supervise a 'team' of Claudes or whatever and don't really mind because I was just writing boring-ass corporate software. If I can get enough money to retire before it's too late, I won't miss work at all.
Unfortunately I am not sure the 'tech' industry will have a lot of use for me, pretty soon.
> Unfortunately I am not sure the 'tech' industry will have a lot of use for me, pretty soon.
That's the core issue. Our time is running out pretty soon anyway. I have no intention of downgrading my lifestyle to the point of near homelessness, better be dead.
I think most people happy with their lives find meaning in their work. There’s studies on men’s happiness in particular being predominantly based on work satisfaction
>During the Luna studies, that people’s reaction to Luna was often, “Wow this would be a great UI for X,” where X was “my dad” or “my employees” or “my daughter”. People didn’t look at it as the UI for themselves; rather, they thought it was a great UI for somebody else.
(Luna is the name of the default look of Windows XP)
If a majority of people think a thing should happen, then by definition that thing should probably usually happen.
If the structure of the moment (societal norms, laws, etc) doesn't provide for it, then the outcry is the initial stage of the conversation and process where we collectively decide whether or not the structure needs to be updated. IE, figure out some new laws or legal principles to apply existing laws such that the thing the majority has decided should happen can happen.
Everything you value for yourself and consider normal today, was only the result of some outcry at some point, and at that time there were people going "oh so dramatic the outcry just ignore it"
And similarly, when an outcry is worthless, it's valuable to tell the people involved that they should shut up. Outcries don't have to be entertained and they also don't have to be tolerated.
>the Tech Transparency Project (TTP) reported that Meta failed to detect 332 ads containing CSAM this year
Considering the amount of ads they handle that seems... reasonable?
Not to mention the stupidity of calling the result of nudify apps "CSAM" when no minors in situation of sexual abuse are used in any way to generate those photos.
> Considering the amount of ads they handle that seems... reasonable?
Why reasonable? Don't these ads pass through pre-publication review, and Meta makes money off of it? Any number above zero is a serious problem. If they can't run an ad business that doesn't publish and profit off of CSAM, they shouldn't run it.
I don't think we should distinguish between 'fake' and real CSAM based on if kids are hurt; this ad machine shouldn't be able to publish it, regardless. The moral question of if it's real or kids were directly harmed seems separate to me.
I recall YouTube was hijacked to show multi-hour ads during the pandemic. These are imperfect systems that can be abused at any scale.
They identified them after the fact and appear to have disclosed that. This is what they needed to do to be able to be held accountable and to do better detecting them in the future.
I block ads and ad services at the device and network level and don't use any Meta services (outside of facebookresearch models), so while I'm fortunate not to have been able to be served any of these, it's also kind of unfortunate that I'm in a relatively rare category to know to report them and how.
Without more context it’s hard to say whether 332 is reasonable, but I interpreted “reasonable” as in there will always be some amount of harmful content uncaught by automated systems.
In my mind there are two components of this that are in direct tension though, regardless of numbers:
1. Humans having to review ad content is legitimately traumatizing and awful
2. Automated systems can miss obviously harmful content, which should never be allowed
To me this means we probably shouldn't permit these systems to scale as they do, because the company profits from harms to its own workers and/or ad viewers. I worry that we've normalized a business that shouldn't exist in its current form, but it prints so much cash that no one is willing to stop it.
> The young royal’s image was “animated into a video of her performing a graphic sex act,” TTP found. Other ads animated a photo of a 14-year-old Instagram influencer “showing off her new sports club uniform” into “a video of her performing oral sex.” A third “preteen” victim “posing in a pink athletic outfit with pigtails” in a series of stock photos was morphed into a video where she looks frightened as she’s molested by an adult male, TTP reported.
This is one of those topics that gets radioactive quickly, so I'm trying to parse this comment under the recent ruling by a judge that certain obscene products of generative AI are protected under the First Amendment.
"We now live in an age where GenAI [generative AI] models can render images depicting the abuse of virtual children that are virtually indistinguishable from those depicting the abuse of actual children. This case illuminates how this evolving technology complicates the lines drawn by the Supreme Court in Stanley, Osborne, and Free Speech Coalition. Indeed, in Free Speech Coalition, the Supreme Court addressed the scope of First Amendment protections for virtual CSAM, but that was nearly twenty-five years ago, and the image-generation technology available today was likely unimaginable back then. Given the relentless advancement in artificial intelligence models, we have some concerns about the lines these cases draw, but we are not free to redraw them ourselves."
Despite the source images not being CSAM, the products of nudify services may be CSAM but not child pornography. Because nudifying minors involves generation of material intended to depict real people who cannot give consent on computers outside the home, I'd consider them not to be protected speech.
>They're also landing big customers in Europe for the right reasons.
We've been migrating all of our AI automations from Gemini to Mistral because of the fear of data transfer regulations. Maybe they don't apply to us (we don't really feed personal data to AI), but we can't afford to find out.
It's been quite annoying too because the Mistral documentation and dashboards are all over the place.
Fear of fines... that's not what I would call "the right reasons".
Yes, but if you were being accurate you wouldn't say "AI wrote this code for me", you'd say "I used an Eliza bot to automate copying and pasting from someone else's github repo".
nice answer. LLMs do reflect whatever humankind has produced. In good and in bad. But it is hardly pirating. It can also do what humankind has never failed to do, for example:
reply