There’s no legitimate reason to have DHS or TSA to begin with.

There’s zero benefit, and neither existed before 9/11

Great idea in the primaries…

Absolutely terrible plan for the general.

Except people are just upset about Flock and remain largely ignorant of other methods, again, like cellphone stingrays.

During the process of forcing connections from all compatible cellular devices in a given area, the StingRay operator needs to determine which device is the desired surveillance target. This is accomplished by downloading the IMSI, ESN, or other identifying data from each of the devices connected to the StingRay.[14] In this context, the IMSI or equivalent identifier is not obtained from the cellular service provider or from any other third-party. The StingRay downloads this data directly from the device using radio waves.[19]

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

To make people aware of those, we need to stop talking about just Flock and draw the line at “every use of surveillance needs a warrant”.

People don’t realize how much we’ve lost since 9/11, this is a chance and we need to capitalize on it and claw back as much ground as we’ve lost

I just noticed this too.

I don’t think OP is the only account, but it seems like bots trying to direct people to slop

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-adda-bias-and-credibility/

If you’re going to tell the people actually getting shit done they’re doing it wrong you should offer more than just criticism.

I’ve said it multiple times …

We need to fight against the concept of constant warrantless surveillance.

I don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that, and frankly can’t think of an easier way to explain it.

I think you’re just gonna have to accept you can’t understand that, and I’ll accept I’m not able to explain basic concepts to you.

It is what it is. Best of luck.

Much bigger deal when you realize they’re talking revenue because there was already zero profits…

In fact, the word “profit” doesn’t appear at all in this article, or most ones about chat or companies

…

That’s my point no list will be good enough. Although I did include another example most would be familiar to illustrate there are other issues…

We need to fight against the concept of constant warrantless surveillance. Not just what methods are used or even thought of today.

If we banned every existing method, everyone will try to find new ones. Then we’d have to wait for those to be massive problems before enough people care

Make it against surveillance in general, and we don’t even have to make new catchy slogans.

Anything else is playing a game designed for us to lose.

I keep saying this…

Making Flock the focus ignores everything else like cellphone stingrays.

We need to be pushing back on surveillance, not just Flock

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao

That doesn’t even mean you’re saying the same thing bud…

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable outside of what they mean about the community capable of creating them.

Do you think “non-mathematicians” think solving a math problem magically gets someone a check? Like, if anythi g you have it backwards

You’re way off on everything though.

You should paraphrase less, wait till after you understand what you’re reading.

I don’t know what you’re trying to say, and I feel like you don’t either.

This means people will stop sharing work and insights with each other, which has never before been the case.

That part was clearly, but obviously false on multiple levels

Cool.

You should put the time in to find a better link then, and post it for people.

That would be productive. But I’ll never know if you figure that out or not

I saw the Wired article yesterday, it’s worse than it sounds.

For at least one of the problems an OpneAI researcher initiated a partnership with a mathametician, loaded all of his work into a chatbot without his knowledge, and then published the result as 100% from the chatbot in this “trove”.

When the mathematician confronted the OpenAI employee, he was told sharing credit was “too complicated” so they wouldn’t acknowledge he had already mostly had it done. When he tried to push back, OpenAI then threatened his career if he tried to tell people what had happened.

It’s is very very unlikely that was a single case. If that happened once, they definitely at least tried it more than once.

Even if it actually solved anything, taking in years of human work and then spitting out one last step is nowhere near what they’re portraying this as. They’re intentionally making it sound like they just gave the chat or the problem and it solved what a human couldn’t.

All it did was steal human work and rush publication

Super fucking sorry that my finding a way around the paywall wasn’t good enough for you.

But of course, you couldn’t even link it either for some reason.

So here’s what I say we do:

You block me so you never see me putting effort in, you’d have came here, not seen my link or any discussion.

And then maybe you’d actually provide your paywall removed link for everyone instead of bitching.

Now I’m doing something to, don’t worry.

I’m going to block you, because obviously it’s hard for me to put up stupid shit like this.

And I just never want to see anything from you again.

Everyone wins champ.

Nobody is talking about putting Altman in jail for violations of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, even though that’s exactly what should be happening.

Republicans control the House, Senate, and Oval right now…

Do I really need to explain why they’re not doing anything?

You can’t figure that one out on you’re own?

I just think you’re overly optimistic

Midterms are in a month…

You seem a bit defensive though.

Because midterms are in a month, and a shit ton of people are pushing really hard that nothing can ever be done so it’s pointless to try.

Be a doomer after midterms and I won’t give a fuck. But right now trump and the AI techbros are spending a shit ton of money to convince the left not to vote.

Don’t do their work for them.

Buddy…

I didn’t say you said they shouldn’t be held accountable…

I’m saying I wasn’t saying that, that no one was saying that…

But I don’t think trying to clarify any of this is gonna be productive

Who is saying they shouldn’t be held accountable?

Like, it’s like you’re arguing we need to disband the fire department because we keep having house fires…

If you really thought that, you could have just typed what you thought I was wrong about instead of a literally useless comment…

Yes…

Holding people accountable, means we have to hold people accountable…

The solution to not holding people accountable, isn’t to make it harder to hold people accountable. The solution is actually holding the right people accountable.

I’m glad we can get on the same page

…

Saying we’ll hold the board responsible if chatbots get to run corporations is almost as ludacris of a prediction as billionaires saying they’ll support a socialist utopia if we let chatbots take everyone’s jobs…

I know people always say that, but there still needs to be executives so there’s still humans to be held accountable.

The vast amount of middle management are useless, but there has to be a human sitting in a chair above the chatbot for legal liability. Otherwise the board will just blame the chatbot for everything.

That also doesn’t mean they should be paid so much, just that a human needs to be above the chatbot as far as final authority