I don’t get exercised about em-dashes, but this is two overlapping AI ticks and it feels unnatural, forced. That’s three strikes.

Maybe you just don’t have a very good eye for writing and so can’t imagine others might.

User name checks out.

Yes, and then they bill by the hour.

No, you wouldn’t go to jail probably, but you could be sued and you could lose your license.

My experience is that people are willing to take all manner of risks to get a pay check. I used to work in an industry so obsessed with metrics, that the only way to get promoted was to cheat, so people cheated, and some got caught & fired, and others got promoted, then caught, then fired, and still others got promoted into positions cozy with leadership and were immune.

My problem with streaming services is that shows you are actively watching can disappear at any time.

Watching a show on Netflix? Oops, it’s on Disney+ now. Watching a show on Disney+? Oops, it’s on another service owned by Disney, but sign up now for a discounted bundle! Watching a show on HBO that was produced by HBO and owned by HBO? Oops, HBO got bought by an MBA that thinks they can make more money selling the streaming rights to Netflix, or worse, just save a few pennies on royalties but not making the show available at all.

I’d say, “ok, i have one or two streaming services at a time and i’ll just limit myself to what’s available; I want to support the system” and the system would find a way to fuck me every single time.

You don’t find it at all embarassing or noteworthy that a law firm likely charging hundreds if not thousands of dollars per billable hour is outputting chatbot dialogue?

I do. And I want to live in a world where that is professionally unacceptable.

Do those studies include the ~$60,000/yr it costs to incarcerate someone per year?

And if you’re not born into money it’s:

1. You can be rich if you just apply yourself.

or

2. You are trapped in a system that will keep you in poverty your entire life no matter what you do.

Which message would you choose?

Edit. And if you grew up rich and wanted to protect the system that put you in charge of a media company, which message would you choose to propagate?

I think you were schooling me a few weeks ago on this subject, and I never responded. If that was you, thank you for your infomative response.

I’m observing “This guy used AI” and you reply with a multiple-paragraph comment arguing about the legal ramifications of a lawyer using generative AI. I’m just saying he used AI. I’m implying that’s embarrassing, but I’m not calling for their disbarment; so I don´t know what motivated your detailed legal analysis.

Imagine if I observed, “Is that priest wearing only a Speedo-brand grape smuggler during his Sunday sermon?” and you started explaining it’s actually legal for the priest to do that and here’s the case law and here are the situations in which the priest would be putting himself in legal jeopardy by wearing a speedo. I mean, you’re not wrong, but, like, what?

I wonder what the snow on Kevin’s yard looks like.

“It’s not illegal.” Hoo boy.

But as far as Osama’s goal for attacking us? He completely failed,

I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but it sounds pretty nonsensical. Osama thought that attacking the US would make the populace overthrow the government? Attacking a country only leads to people unifying behind their government. Every country in the world that has been bombed by the United States knows that. The only people who don´t know that run the United States Air Force.

The story I understand, that makes a lot more sense, is that Osama bin Laden wanted to drag the United States into a land war that would drain its resources and galvanize the Islamic world into uniting against the US. The results were mixed, I’d say, definitely not a “complete failure.” The US committed to a 20-year-war in Afghanistan that it lost, and a separate war in Iraq which it “won”, but at great cost. But it did completely fail to unify the Islamic world against the US; though ISIS was definitely an expression of that, ME governments stay aligned with the US.

Yes, but what I’m telling you this has absolutely nothing to do with AI and everything to do with the impunity of wealth.

All these AI companies MASSIVELY pirated the internet for training data, all very clearly illegal by the letter and spirit of the law, and they have not even been charged for it. The most that happens is that content companies sue in the hopes to get some shares in AI, or sue one AI company because their daddy owns a competing AI company, and those suits seem to ignore the piracy and instead are about whether they needed a separate license to train.

Meanwhile, AI companies are very carefully trying to put liability sponges between it and any lawsuits. Tesla tried (and recently failed) to dump 100% of liability on drivers of it’s “self-driving” cars, and every mission critical AI service is likely to have a human mindlessly rubber stamping AI decisions as fast as they can just so they can be held liable instead of the employer or the AI company.

And the grand gesture is me playing Billie Jean outside her engagement party to the business mogul?

Oh, men are definitely the customers. There was a website with a pornstar backer… Madison something or other. It was billed as a place to meet horny married women looking to have an affair–just sex, no attachment. It got hacked and, surprise surprise, it was entirely men talking to bots.

Edit:

Annalee Newitz, editor-in-chief of Gizmodo, analyzed the leaked data.[46] They initially found that only roughly 12,000 (0.22%) of the 5.5 million registered female accounts were used regularly.[47][48] The vast majority of accounts had been used only once — the day they were registered. Newitz also found that many women’s accounts were created from the same IP address, suggesting there were many fake accounts. They found that women checked email messages very infrequently: every one time a woman checked her email, 13,585 men checked theirs. Only 9,700 of the 5.5 million female accounts had ever replied to a message, compared to the 5.9 million men who would do the same. They concluded, “The women’s accounts show so little activity that they might as well not be there.”[47] In a subsequent article the following week Newitz acknowledged that they had “misunderstood the evidence” in their previous article and that their conclusion that there were few females active on the site had been based on data recording “bot” activities in contacting members. Newitz confirmed that Ashley Madison had created more than 70,000 female bots to send millions of fake messages to male users. Still, they note that “we have absolutely no data recording human activity at all in the Ashley Madison database dump from Impact Team. All we can see is when fake humans contacted real ones.” They noted that the site seemed to keep track of human-to-human contact but that the Impact Team had not released this data.[49]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Madison_data_breach

you can’t ‘oopsie, it wasn’t me it was my computer’ your way out of a cybercrime.

You can’t, but they can.

There are those whom the law binds but does not protect and those whom the law protects but does not bind, as the saying goes.

!brandnewsentence@lemmy.world if there’s novel phrasing.

And they gave it unlimited compute, I heard, though I can´t find the source on that. Imagine sandboxing something that has the knowledge to get out of a sandbox, telling it to hack a server, giving it unlimited compute, and then just walking away for several days. It is absolutely insane.

My last runthrough with the apps, I’d carefully read everyone’s profile and craft an interesting introductory message. It took quite a bit of time and was rarely rewarded with a reply, much less a conversation, much less a first date. My messages got shorter and shorter until eventually I was just mass swiping. And, just as far as a use of time goes, if all that matters is a woman likes your profile, it’s more efficient to roboswipe and filter the women who match back.

Also, the emotional toll of serially declaring “I like you” and asking “do you like me?” only to be greeted by rejection after rejection is pretty devastating.

Anyway, very happy with my current girlfriend whom I randomly ran into at a store while looking for an accordion.