|
cinci zoo sniper posted:The alternative would be a paid search engine/social network/etcetera, where you aren’t the product, but I’m afraid we’re not there yet collectively. (I appreciate my experience isn’t “collectively” but still.)
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
I would say one of the interesting impacts of AI on search results is that AI-generated content has the possibility of being much more useful than human-created clickbait, and ironically, still less likely to appear as a search result on Google.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 01:25
|
|
|
Most of the internet is already written with the idea that being read by robots is the most important part, so once all the writing is also being done by robots we can neatly close that loop and read a book or something instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:The alternative would be a paid search engine/social network/etcetera, where you aren’t the product, but I’m afraid we’re not there yet collectively. The more viable alternative is regulators just breaking necks of everyone hard enough that we’re left with search engines et. al. being subsidised by, e.g., Microsoft’s software sales or Apple’s hardware sales. I mean, the ideal would probably be a multinational, tax-funded entity like UNESCO that ran search and social media, with ethics boards, lots of paid content moderators, rules that encourage information over advertising, etc. But like, lol at the chances of that happening in our lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 03:25
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I mean, the ideal would probably be a multinational, tax-funded entity like UNESCO that ran search and social media, with ethics boards, lots of paid content moderators, rules that encourage information over advertising, etc. Even if it happened it would probably be weaponized for geopolitical purposes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 05:27
|
|
|
Less UNESCO, more UNATCO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 07:08
|
|
|
ErIog posted:None of this is true. Offline mode works fine in the PC version. I know this because I started naked and didn't want messages in early areas so I could have more fun exploring them myself and figuring out where to get loot. Everything I said was true, and I addressed your points in the second paragraph. Come on, its right there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2023 07:50
|
|
|
Check out a high-level summary about the lawsuit DOJ says it filed against Google for constraint of trade. It looks devastating. https://twitter.com/jason_kint/status/1618029720599408643
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 01:24
|
|
|
Look, they took "Do No Evil" out of their mission statement, what more do you want
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 01:30
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Check out a high-level summary about the lawsuit DOJ says it filed against Google for constraint of trade. It looks devastating. It doesn't matter how strong it is, Google has near infinite resources to fight this. I'm not super optimistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 01:50
|
|
|
I'm not super optimistic about anything, 2 years until the next election is a very short deadline. But I'd rather the suit were filed than not. What the hell, they did break up Ma Bell, and they did pressure Microsoft to open up browers on Windows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 01:58
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:I'm not super optimistic about anything, 2 years until the next election is a very short deadline. But I'd rather the suit were filed than not. What the hell, they did break up Ma Bell, and they did pressure Microsoft to open up browers on Windows. It's worth noting that there seems to be a bi-partisan interest in standing up to the Big Tech, whatever are the motives of the individual actors involved, so you do not necessarily have to write this lawsuit off in January 2025 sharp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
Furthermore, there are eight states involved as well as the Justice Department, so it isn't all going to fall apart if there's a Republican President next.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
cinci zoo sniper posted:It's worth noting that there seems to be a bi-partisan interest in standing up to the Big Tech, whatever are the motives of the individual actors involved, so you do not necessarily have to write this lawsuit off in January 2025 sharp. There's a bi-partisan interest when it directly hurts the consumer like with the Cambridge Analytica scandal or Microsoft forcing people to keep their crappy software installed, but consumers don't really care about being shown a slightly less relevant ad than they would otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 13:01
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:There's a bi-partisan interest when it directly hurts the consumer like with the Cambridge Analytica scandal or Microsoft forcing people to keep their crappy software installed, but consumers don't really care about being shown a slightly less relevant ad than they would otherwise. The consumer here is businesses scammed by Google to overpay for ads and competing ad businesses killed by Goggle.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 14:13
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Furthermore, there are eight states involved as well as the Justice Department, so it isn't all going to fall apart if there's a Republican President next. A Republican president is more likely to pursue Google than a big chunk of the Democratic field. The "war on woke" and all that, most of the Republican big beasts are increasingly anti big tech these days because they see both the corporations and their employees as too liberal: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
Now post the same graph but what the company donates
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 15:13
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Now post the same graph but what the company donates Its similar, still very heavily to Democrats: quote:Alphabet https://observer.com/2020/11/big-tech-2020-presidential-election-donation-breakdown-ranking/ Its a chunk of the Democratic party thats most in bed with big tech these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 15:30
|
|
|
I thought this was a good piece that explained the logic of layoffs, and it was written a month before the current round of cuts at tech companies: https://www.thediff.co/archive/how-companies-think-about-layoffs/ quote:Sure, it’s frustrating to get laid off and immediately see your former employer hiring for a job suspiciously similar to the one you just got pink-slipped out of (I've been there!)—but companies that do a round of layoffs are generally restructuring for growth—so it’s locally unfair, but generally positive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Blut posted:Its similar, still very heavily to Democrats: That article doesn't separate employee donations from corporate donations, it combines them. While workers overwhelmingly support Dems, the corporate money tends to be more evenly divided. Here's how Google spent its PAC money, for instance:  Amazon's PAC maintains a similarly even split, and Facebook/Meta's PAC tends to lean a bit more toward the GOP. Microsoft appears to blow with the political winds, heavily favoring the Dems in 2008 and overwhelmingly favoring the GOP in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:That article doesn't separate employee donations from corporate donations, it combines them. While workers overwhelmingly support Dems, the corporate money tends to be more evenly divided. Here's how Google spent its PAC money, for instance: Right, but if the company workers overwhelming support the Dems, and the company executives overwhelming support the Dems, and the corporation money slightly supports the Dems more than Republicans, that overall adds up to a very large pro-Democratic support lean for the company. That actual donation bias plus the general "big tech = woke!" feelings of Republicans is why a lot of them are more anti-big tech than Democrats these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
I guess the AI Lawyer guy isn’t going through with it anymore according to NPR:quote:A British man who planned to have a "robot lawyer" help a defendant fight a traffic ticket has dropped the effort after receiving threats of possible prosecution and jail time. Anyway, I was under the impression—based entirely on TV and movies—that one could choose to represent themselves even if they were not a bar certified lawyer. Is this not true? And if it is true what’s the argument for not letting a rando “practice” law with an AI chatbot? Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jan 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 16:39
|
|
|
Blut posted:Right, but if the company workers overwhelming support the Dems, and the company executives overwhelming support the Dems, For fucks sake, Facebook has multiple execs and senior leadership who were part of Republican administrations while people like Musk, Zuckerberg, and Bezos have always been right wing trash. Then you have other tech assholes like literal supervillain Peter Thiel. Or the massive amounts of dark money that is the main way these kinds of people operate politically. Those people don't "support the Dems" they at most donate to where they see the wind blowing in terms of protecting their smaug-like money hoards. Peter Thiel boosted a senate candidate who, if they had their way, would criminalize Thiel's very existence, because Thiel felt the odds were low that'd happen while the odds were high that the person would help accomplish their other goals. Boris Galerkin posted:I guess the AI Lawyer guy isn’t going through with it anymore according to NPR: Because the AI Chatbot would presumably meet the threshold for being consider to provide legal services despite not being cleared to do so. It's not "I looked this stuff up on Google" it's "I'm just repeating what my AI lawyer tells me to say." Evil Fluffy fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Jan 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:I guess the AI Lawyer guy isn’t going through with it anymore according to NPR: Same reason we don't let randos sell "food" commercially without a permit from the relevant health department. It's not in people's best interest to allow them to entrust their court case to a smooth-talking huckster who's only pretending to know anything about the law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Same reason we don't let randos sell "food" commercially without a permit from the relevant health department. It's not in people's best interest to allow them to entrust their court case to a smooth-talking huckster who's only pretending to know anything about the law. The way I see it is that I don't need a food permit to cook food for myself so why should I need a law permit to use an AI Chatbot to represent myself? That's how I see it anyway. e: I'm willing to accept that I'm 100% wrong but I just don't really see how choosing to use an AI Chatbot to represent myself by repeating it verbatim is any different from looking up a dinner recipe on NYT Cooking and following it step by step to make dinner for myself. Boris Galerkin fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Jan 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:For fucks sake, Facebook has multiple execs and senior leadership who were part of Republican administrations while people like Musk, Zuckerberg, and Bezos have always been right wing trash. Then you have other tech assholes like literal supervillain Peter Thiel. Or the massive amounts of dark money that is the main way these kinds of people operate politically. Peter Thiel is notoriously one of the few big tech Republicans. The vast majority of big tech CEOs skew Democratic: quote:Here’s the final tally of where tech billionaires donated for the 2020 election. About 98% of political contributions from internet companies this cycle went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/02/tech-billionaire-2020-election-donations-final-tally.html quote:CNBC found that billionaire executives like Asana's Dustin Moskovitz, former Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt, and Twilio CEO Jeff Lawson and his wife, Erica, were among some of the biggest contributors to pro-Biden super PAC Future Forward USA. During this election cycle, Moskovitz, Schmidt, and the Lawsons have spent about $24 million, $6 million, and $7 million, respectively. https://www.businessinsider.com/tech-execs-2020-political-donations-reed-hastings-dustin-moskovitz-report-2020-11?r=US&IR=T
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:The way I see it is that I don't need a food permit to cook food for myself so why should I need a law permit to use an AI Chatbot to represent myself? That's how I see it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Anyway, I was under the impression—based entirely on TV and movies—that one could choose to represent themselves even if they were not a bar certified lawyer. Is this not true? And if it is true what’s the argument for not letting a rando “practice” law with an AI chatbot? Is this the case in Britain, where the case is being heard?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 17:24
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:The way I see it is that I don't need a food permit to cook food for myself so why should I need a law permit to use an AI Chatbot to represent myself? That's how I see it anyway. Because you're not representing yourself, that's the whole point. Someone who is not a licensed lawyer is presenting arguments to the court, even if through software. You're free to represent yourself badly if you want, but Court isn't a gameshow where you can call a friend to help you out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Because practicing law is legally different from cooking. You can get thrown in jail for practicing law without a license. You can't get thrown in jail for cooking without a license. If (note if) AI Chatbot is practicing law, it's a criminal. Enjoy years of court decisions trying to figure this one out. Again, if it's legally possible for me to represent myself in court by googling poo poo then I literally don't see a difference between that and using an AI Chatbot to represent myself in court.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
Is the issue here that people aren't allowed to be represented by a chatbot, or that people aren't allowed to bring in the stuff the chatbot can't function without because it's neither lawyer nor human? The court is probably always going to just default to anybody doing this trying to waste their time, almost certainly a correct assumption, at least until an one of these programs can pass the bar. I'd like to say their legitimate concern is the law becoming a formal two-tier structure like it's going to do to all customer service, but I think some people may be about to find out that "we'll replace all your non-partner labor with a machine!" is going to get a much warmer reception than "We've made robots lawyers now, you're out of the job!" My suspicion is that if legal minds thought this was even remotely possible, and I agree with them that it isn't, they'd be melting down about it and actually crushing it hard and fast. Maybe that's happening behind the scenes I guess, I wouldn't know if so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
The problem’s not with the guy representing himself by using a chatbot, the problem is the techbro claiming that his chatbot will do a good job representing you. Nobody’s mad at the person doing a lovely job cooking for themselves, but they’re sure mad at the huckster who sold them rotten ingredients and said they were good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 17:35
|
|
|
Just make the bot take the bar exam to prove its competency (or lack thereof)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
Take the bar to the bot, if you know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
An AI would probably do very poorly on the LSAT or Bar exam, but very well on a law school class exam. The LSAT and Bar exam are going to be a lot of logic puzzles and critical thinking skills that you can't just info dump an answer to (at least it did 15 years ago). A law school exam on the other hand, is almost entirely about specific content, rules, and procedures to memorize that a bot with access to the internet could easily ace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:An AI would probably do very poorly on the LSAT or Bar exam, but very well on a law school class exam. In fact, the Opening Arguments guys have been testing it by explicitly plugging bar exam practice questions into ChatGPT. As you predicted, the bot is pretty good at repeating back a decent rephrasing of the question, and usually can pull in some of the relevant legal ideas, but completely fails to actually get the question right. Often it falls prey to the same attractive but wrong trap answers designed to punish students for memorizing but not understanding.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:03
|
|
|
So, IANAL, but if I stand in front of a court and say junk, I'm the one responsible for that, even if a robot is whispering in my ear telling me to say stuff. If my buddy Tony the not-lawyer says "just fart loudly and you're free to go", the judge shouldn't care, I'm the guy responsible for doing what I do in the court. If Tony is my lawyer and he says that, and he is representing me, then there's a chance he does take a lot of the blame. If a chatbot is whispering telling me what to say, is it "representing" me? Not in any legal way I think. And them saying they will tell you what to say but not actually represent you or be responsible, that sounds like it will break some very old laws about misleading advertising, and it is misleading in a way that could cause repercussions including physically throwing people into jail. And then there are legal protections that you get when talking to your lawyer, but you wouldn't when talking to your chatbot, so anything you say to it could be subpoenaed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
Can law enforcement subpeona the records of what you told your chatbot not-lawyer from whatever tech company is holding them?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:08
|
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:If a chatbot is whispering telling me what to say, is it "representing" me? Not in any legal way I think. And them saying they will tell you what to say but not actually represent you or be responsible, that sounds like it will break some very old laws about misleading advertising, and it is misleading in a way that could cause repercussions including physically throwing people into jail. You can't practice law without a license. The chat bot is practicing law without a license in court. This would be the same as someone who is not a lawyer being asked or paid to help a client and sitting next to them in a court room whispering in their ear. The whispering is not that "one weird trick" to not actually practicing law without a license. The judge will not be amused.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
StumblyWumbly posted:So, IANAL, but if I stand in front of a court and say junk, I'm the one responsible for that, even if a robot is whispering in my ear telling me to say stuff. If my buddy Tony the not-lawyer says "just fart loudly and you're free to go", the judge shouldn't care, I'm the guy responsible for doing what I do in the court. If Tony is my lawyer and he says that, and he is representing me, then there's a chance he does take a lot of the blame. The important thing to understand is that lawyers are a medieval guild dressed up in suits. They get to decide who is a lawyer, and who is not, and regulate their profession. A lawyer giving you bad (i.e. harmful) advice? They'll crack down on that. A friend who is not a lawyer giving you bad advice? They don't care. A computer program promising to replace lawyers in court? Or, say, some tele-law system that feeds you instructions from a robot or a remote lawyer? They will fight against that tooth and nail even if it is a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2023 18:10
|
|
