The sentiment that the AI bares any noteworthy responsibility for this is purely anti AI rage, that should be aimed at legitimate problems.

Imagine suing a notebook company for their paper being the paper of choice for selfharming teens?

Imagine suing home depot for selling rope and a stool to someone who has had enough?

Imagine suing nickleback for making music of the quality that encouraged this?

Im saying, we’re all aware this is some bits on a server right? Like this is clearly not a person, doesn’t have the impact of a person, and unless they’ve specifically tuned it to manipulate the impressionable into killing people, these sentiments just don’t make sense.

He never stopped doing bad things, he just started rehabing his image

Why would he give a shit what people think about him? Others rich people don’t because when you’ve got enough money you can insulate yourself entirely from what the world thinks.

This is the most ridiculous line of reasoning.

Firstly, many rich people care. Many care about their “legacy”. They want their names on big donations, and on school campuses.

Secondly, many rich people spend inordinate amounts on PR advisement firms, demonstrating that there are significant dollar values put into caring about this. We’re talking about PR for the person, not even for a business.

Nor do the people judging him so harshly.

They judge from what is known. You judge from giving him the benefit of the doubt between the cracks.

The fuck? Why would he donate money and save countless lives just to benefit from it via some claimed business link?

This is such a bizarre misrepresentation of what my comment is clearly saying.

I am clearly pointing out that he is still doing evil and you are being blinded by some fancy curated numbers.

I don’t even know how you got to that conclusion.

I doubt you actually believe this, at least if we are understanding the words as written.

Just based on the website we are talking on, I am going to assume we have a few shared moral similarities, at least at a glance.

We think murder, rape, discrimination based on inalienable traits, domestic abuse, religious fanaticism, theft outside of exceptions are wrong.

If we start going down even that quickly thought up list, and just look at surveys from groups throughout the world, we start chunking massive percentages of people off of our “good” list very quickly.

These are nowhere near exact numbers because the point isn’t about any specific one of these, but about disqualifying behaviours and points of view.

Most people don’t murder, but many support it. Let’s just say we are only thinking about people who will murder at some point in their lives, and guesstimate that at 1% off the list.

99% good

Most people don’t rape… or do they? How many third world or religiously fanatic nations treat rape as standard, within marriages, on people of lower status, etc.

Even in western nations, the numbers of people who are sexually assaulted by people they know are more like 1 in [single digit number], and then further surveys always reveal that there is probably significant under-reporting going on, with many people unable to believe they were raped, told to be silent, and who ultimately rationalize away the event.

Now you go to countries with religious fanaticism, and many if not most condone rape in some fashion, especially spousal rape.

I would estimate, that the amount of people who rape, extremely roughly guesstimating, is around 1/10th the population, if not higher.

Some will overlap with the murderers of course, but this is just a thought experiment, and I already think this guess is on the low side, so lets move on.

89% good

Discrimination is where we start chunking hard. Even if you try to be charitable here, surveys show that even within western countries many are ok with and regularly discriminate against people for their inalienable traits. You go to poorer countries or countries with less stable situations and this gets even worse.

Lets just guesstimate that of the non overlaps, this takes 3/10 off the list, giving quite a bit of leeway to people with less blatant instances.

59% good

I could keep going but I hope you see the point I am making here and why I think that if just about anyone here sat down and truly pieced together what the average person was like, with whatever their personal list of disqualifiers from being a good person were, they would quickly come to the conclusion, that most people are not good, and could easily come to the conclusion that many were horrible, depending on what horrible meant in that context. Horrible doesn’t have to be saved for only hitler just because its not used for someone who steals a candy bar.

So many people have a very binary view of others, and Lemmy’s the same, as the downvoting shows.

What a ridiculous argument you’ve made here. The voting system is literally binary. No one can vote 7/10 on messaging, 4/10 on points.

Does this offset his earlier negative behaviour? I honestly think it might do.

This is exactly why hes done it. You don’t know what hes actually responsible for. You don’t see the pharmaceutical investments hes made, farmland he owns, or his bad takes (like recently suggesting that we should abandon the climate because he’s dipping his toes into the AI space).

You see some flashy figures and figure, well that must be a good guy!

Some “nuance” that is.

I think perhaps this is a misunderstanding and they were simply stating that they did similarly to america, rather than implying any direct involvement.

There is at least one Robo vac that does not rely on the cloud, and personally I can’t imagine feeling comfortable with a robovac being cloud connected for no reason.

Is the fact that SteamOS is based on Arch going to change this such that prior Arch users must now suffer through Gentoo or will they stay the same, considering the proprietary inclusions of SteamOS to be enough to exclude it from the fold?

Then that doesnt really help your point then does it?

You say it was, but I don’t recall it ever filing for bankruptcy etc, so I have to wonder what these claims are based on, and why you felt their journalism was actually good and the type of thing people say they would pay for in the first place. In essence, you are still using the bad example, but with a new unverified claim that still doesnt work because it is a bad example.

I’m talking about all sources

Yet the only ones you listed are the billionaire backed ones. Curious.

Almost as if your argument is in bad faith because you yourself don’t have any great examples of the sort of thing people would want to support that are also news outlets with reporters, and so you are forced to use bad examples.

Ill give you an example though, just like the other person pointed out, there are smaller sources popping up everywhere. Even youtube journalism such as HowTown are pockets of not yet corporate information sources that people are fine with supporting.

Well, look at lemmy anytime someone posts a link that requires you to pay for the journalism. Pitchforks and torches.

People don’t want to pay for something they don’t think is quality.

It’s not like these companies would clean up their act if they got another viable revenue stream. We can see that because when companies do, they regularly just keep the extra cash.

What you’d need is a boot strapped organization that actually had standards people cared about and didn’t bend. Its an impossibly hard situation, yes, but that does not make your snark prescient or clever. More than that, it doesnt at all back up your conclusion that people don’t want to pay for quality journalism. It just doesnt exist, because it gets bought out by billionaires.

Oh nowadays you can get 26tb drives pretty affordably, so a 4 bay NAS could be getting you 50TiB now.

Of course most people don’t need all that though… including me honestly but hey, that data isn’t going to collect itself.

pretty sure that’s meant in a light hearted fashion

Imagine not having a double digit bay NAS with triple digit Tebibytes of space.

Alternatively, your setup is kinda slow and you’re kinda lazy (not used pejoratively).

In what way? You don’t own anything on the fediverse. The people who run the various instances do.

Maybe they even have a TOS that says you own it, but then what? its still up to them to continue to host it, and they have no contract with you.

Unless you are self hosting your own instance, and only count what is on that, you own no more than with larger social media sites.

To be clear, I think that federations certainly are better than monolithic sources for a variety of reasons for real people, but they aren’t a solution for ownership.

Personally I feel that the hate for AI is misplaced (mostly, as I do get there is a lot of nuance regarding peoples feelings on training sourcing etc). Partially because its such a wide catch all term, and then mostly, by far, because all of the problems with AI are actually just problems with the underlying crony capitalism in charge of its development right now.

Every problem like AI “lacking empathy” is down to the people using it not caring to keep it out of places where it fails to accomplish such goals or where they are explicitly using it to strip people of their humanity; something that inherently lacks empathy.

If you take away the horrible business motivations etc, I think its pretty undeniable AI is and will be a great technology for a lot of purposes and not for a lot of the ones its used for now (this continued idea that all UI can be replaced such that programmers wont be needed for specific apps and other such uses).

Obviously we can’t just separate that but I think its important to think about especially regarding regulation. That’s because I believe that big AI currently is practically begging to be regulated such that the moat to create useful AI becomes so large that no useful open source general purpose AI tools can exist without corporate backing. That’s I think one of their end goals along with making it far more expensive to become a competitor.

That being said this is a little bit out of hand in that this was about software in general, and regarding that and AI, I do believe empathy can be included, and built correctly, a computer system could have a lot more empathy than most human beings who typically only have meaningful empathy towards people they personally empathize with in their actions, which leads to awful systemic discrimination reinforcing practices.

As for the flock example, I think its almost certain they got in with some backroom deals, and in a more fair world… where those still exist somehow, the police department would have a contract with some sort of stipulations regarding what happens with false identifications. The police officers also would not be traumatizing people over stolen property in the first place.

That is all to say, I think that often when software is blamed, what should actually be blamed is the business goals that lead to the creation of that software and the people behind them. The software is after all automation of the will of the owners.

Burden of proof? You literally just made your first point about anything I said, I shouldn’t have even wasted the time responding.

You are really staking your argument on thinking companies don’t get consequences for software fuckups?

• Equifax: up to $700M settlement after failing to patch a known vulnerability that led to the 2017 breach
• TSB Bank (UK): £48.65M fine for the 2018 core-banking migration meltdown that locked out customers
• Uber: settled with the victim’s family after its AV killed a pedestrian in testing
• Boeing 737 MAX: paid $2.5B for hiding MCAS flight-control software flaws
• CrowdStrike: shareholders sued after a faulty update locked up Windows PCs worldwide and it lost a shit ton in value over that incident

I’m sure you’ll make up some excuses for why somehow none of these count, but the list is so deep you could debate every example here and 10 more would pop up. Tons more happens behind the scenes too with SLA contracts etc.

This sounds like you knew you were wrong all along but still wanted to be a snide, condescending, and undeservedly arrogant about it.

The fact that some don’t doesn’t mean that none do.

You go do some leg work before requesting it of me after thinking you could just troll your way out of your ridiculous initial comment

Reading your other comments outside this thread, this whole chain seems so illogical. What triggered this bizarre emotional reaction to such a relatively innocuous comment? You must have been reading something in.

With the amount you’ve typed you could have easily typed a rationale. The truth is your opinions don’t hold weight and have no good rationale. That is all.