I really don’t know. I think for certain types of crimes, I’m ok with it. Like rapists of young children. They have zero contribution to society and are unable to be repaired. I don’t know if this crime fits that threshold. 47 billion is ridiculous.
Consider what your thresholds are for what constitutes witnesses and admissions of guilt. For example, confessing to crimes that weren’t actually performed by them, do you honor the claim anyway?
And does a group of police witnessing a suspect or conversely a group of the suspect’s friends witnessing a police officer do something heinous count?
I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise but I just want you to recognize that your position is that you’re ok with “bad” people being killed as a form of punishment and mine is that ensuring that label is always appropriately applied is an impossibility.
I don’t like the thought of terrible people getting to continue to live if they’ve done irreparable harm to others, but I’m also not ok with saying that we totally need to burn THAT WITCH because Goody Constance totally witnessed them communing with the devil.
Osama/Hitler getting killed in military action - fine. An abused child/person killing their attacker - look the other way. Giving Edward Snowden lethal injection because he totally deserves it for endangering Americans - not acceptable.
Yea. It’s more like if this person can’t be studied or has no use here except to haunt the living, sure. Get rid of them. Some of them want that. Some psychos know how bad they are to society.
But then you have a lot to weigh in on. You said it shouldn’t exist at all. Which for the most part I do agree with. But there are some that I am ok with going away.
Hitler was not killed in action. He killed himself. People like Dr. Death or the rest of his inner cronies can be executed as well.
once you reach ‘unmanned’ craft, the capabilities can get silly. the pilot being able to function in the G forces used to be a major limiting factor. remote-control meant limiting capabilities to what a human could comprehend. now we’re well past that too.
funny how maga never seems to bring that little idea up lmao “hey everyone look over here at my left hand” while the right hand rapes and plunders our democracy
So, interesting point here is that the jury only took 4 hours to complete. Just four. That means that they basically made up their minds and they just needed to confirm.
I don’t know, maybe I should be angry or something. But Activision/Blizzard have been pretty shitty for a while now. This will just be more of the same and more of me continueing to not buying their games.
I grew up on Blizzard and Activision games, but the good feelings and nostalgia wore off when they started treating beloved franchises like DLC piggy banks.
AFAIK, the situation with Burger King, is that unlike McDonalds, BK doesn’t have much leverage over Russian franchisee’s. They can try and say “close the stores, we’re leaving”, but the actual store owners would just say “no” and re-brand them back to “Rostik’s”. They don’t really have any assets in Russia so there’s nothing really to sell either, but they do still receive the franchise fees. So pulling out would only benefit Russia
Rostik’s is actually what KFC was, and the funny thing about it is KFC has the similar franchise structure in Russia, they officially left, told all franchisees to change names back to Rostik’s, but the biggest one just said “no” even to that, as KFC’s contract that includes the rights to use the name expires only in 2035.
I admire your positive thinking, but it may also provide plausible deniability for legitimate CSAM, by your own logic. Either way, I see this being used to bully, blackmail, or worse. It’s not that we are going to stop AI development, nor that we should. Perhaps as it improves (remember, right now it’s the worst it will ever be), we can teach AI to recognize when it may be used for purposes like creating realistic CSAM or other such material, and have it log or report such uses.
I honestly don’t know the solution, but I don’t see the world ever getting “ho-hum, it’s all fake anyway” about minor involved pornography.
it will do neither. i generated pictures can usually be identified by eye alone, and some companies are starting to add an invisible watermark to their output
You guys are working with the idea that companies and organizations will be creating these AI tools. They will be bound by laws but random people of groups of people will not. It will only get worse.
Methinks you might want to give it space to breathe from the child porn scandal before you attempt a positive spin on truth becoming irrelevant in the future.
But the overall impact of not being able to trust any image will not be positive. We already have widespread distrust of everything in the media that leads to people forming cults around their beliefs and strong personalities that are immune to facts. That will only get worse as photos and videos can no longer be trusted as evidence of anything real.
bbc.co.uk
Top