Equality should be in protection of rights. People are not equal, and never will be. They should have equal rights, though.
Steve Vai is a better guitarist than I am. He shouldn’t have his fingers broken so that we both have equal ability to play the guitar.
Trying to make people equal in every way is evil. It only brings the best in every field down to the level of the worst, since there’s no way to bring everyone up to the level of the best in every field.
That’s not the point of equity. The point is to compensate for disadvantages people couldn’t prevent and can’t fix on their own. Stairs are equal. They work the same way for everyone. But someone in a wheelchair can’t climb stairs.
But you can reframe it. People don’t have equal mobility but everyone has an equal right to access a place, so you have stairs and ramps. You can’t make everything a ramp or stair to create equality.
That’s not how equity works in practice. It doesn’t examine anyone’s actual capabilities or disadvantages. They bucket large groups of people into categories they deem worthy to receive resources, despite their actual need. Every person has their individual story, challenges, and priveleges yet equity assumes otherwise, that you deserve compensation based on the group you were assigned to, not what you actually need.
It may work like that in practice in fields where it is extremely difficult to design solutions that are adapted to each person. Imagine you have to tailor laws and their application specifically to many millions of individuals, how do you do that without creating more manageable categories?
In practice that’s equity programs work by hurtingsomeone. Some California schools cut advanced math classes because they weren’t diverse enough, or it was contributing to an educational gap, or some bullshit. Equity requires adding burden to someone, it may be in an attempt at fairness, but that doesn’t make it right.
Not sure why everyone is downvoting any opinion that isn’t “give minorities all the available resources!”.
It should not be: you need x% of your classroom seats to go to minorities. That’s silly because talented and driven people will be sent away to make space. It should be more like: “you must provide an avenue to help those who can prove disadvantaged status to take extra classes and then reapply to your program.” These classes could be online or whatever to make it as easy as possible for someone with less means but still driven to succeed have a way to better themselves.
There is a huge range of equity implementations in the US. My company, for example, has not done any “means testing” when recruiting for racial equity. Nor when it donates to blanket racial programs. There was no means testing when internships were offered to high school students of particular demographics.
Lmaooo the only people who use that California talking point are people who have never been inside of a school in California. They aren’t cutting math classes they are offering alternatives to high level math courses like calculus, stats, and data science. Explain to me how that’s burdening anyone??
This picture isn’t about breaking Steve’s fingers so you can both play shitty guitar. It’s about making sure you can both access a guitar and lessons to learn.
The equality picture would be shoving a guitar in each of your hands and a coupon for lessons, while failing to address that you live 2 hours away from the teacher while he lives next door.
Eta: equity would be providing you with a free buss ride to the teachers house 2 hours away. This gives you all the tools to get guitar lessons, but, you might not be able to take advantage of this because a 5 hour commitment isn’t the same as a 1 hour 5 minute commitment and you lose out on opportunity cost. You get free guitar lessons and a ride, but the system is broken. Justice is fixing the system so that there’s enough guitar teachers within a reasonable distance. Like say, making sure that no one is more than 20 minutes from a guitar teacher.
This is where justice would come in. Fixing the system so that resources are distributed automatically to provide everyone with equitable access to the tools
It’s about making sure you can both access a guitar and lessons to learn.
We are already trying to do that. It’s called equality. Also known as equality of opportunity, where everyone has access to acquire a guitar and guitar lessons. How does “justice” augment this?
Nobody is advocating for breaking fingers. Following the example set by the image, if someone were to have, for example, issues with their hands, then they should be provided tools to help them play the guitar. Do you think someone with a disability shouldn’t be allowed to do things even though tools to let them do those things exist? Keeping up such barriers is how we miss out on amazing talents hampered by obstacles that could be overcome provided adequate access.
I think what he was saying, but slightly missed, was, if both people needed guitar classes, we should not give the guy with the hand issues the only available seat.
Really though, if we just spend a bit more on education, there could be seats for everyone! So maybe the last picture could be fertilizing the tree to make it bigger or something.
There is no taking away. Someone will have access to guitars that wouldn’t otherwise. Someone somewhere let a great player hear a guitar, see how it’s played, maybe even gave them their first guitar. it’s about giving not taking away.
I think your problem is that you think that something will be taken away. Try to think in terms of the giving. Steve is not going to have anything taken away. Someone will have access to guitars that wouldn’t otherwise. Steve will be fine.
Then instead of letting the super advantaged, super rich take all the resources we should work on getting and producing more. Which probably starts with taking from the people who are hoarding them all.
At birth there are situations that give people advantages that have nothing to do with ability. These advantages are systemic, where certain people will have better access to opportunity (apples) than others. The goal should be that the opportunities are equal so no one has a head start. The best apple picker will pick more apples instead of the person born with an orchard and apple picking machinery who very well may be a shit apple picker.
For your example, we’d end up with the best musicians becoming popular, not the ones where their parent could afford to give them private lessons since childhood and had industry connections to make them big where they wouldn’t otherwise.
It’s not about equality of outcomes, it’s about equality of opportunity. No one should start a race with a head start because then you don’t know who the best runner is. Everyone should start equally and everyone should have equal access to the same shoes, equipment, and practice opportunity, otherwise we can’t see who’s actually best without an advantage.
The comment above was about having the best guitarists. Regardless, why wouldn’t it be important to see who’s best? Why is it better to see who has the most advantages that weren’t earned? The argument for capitalism is that whoever can do the best gets rewarded the most. It’s fundamentally flawed because capitalism promotes creating barriers and ensuring the playing field isn’t even though.
No matter what the situation, having the best people doing the jobs will create the best outcomes for the most people. In what way is this not desirable?
What you mean is something close to “We should not tax the rich to level the playing field” and that is a very bad take.
No one wants to bring everyone up to the level of the best in every field. What people want is for the baseline conditions to be good enough so everyone has the opportunity of having a decent life.
Why are you arguing against something literally no one said? How is this graphic trying to ‘make everyone equal in every way’? How is the person on the left of the graphic disadvantaged in any way? (That last one answers your idiotic ‘breaking fingers’ point)
While your statement is true, the result is Steve Vai not having a motivation or reason to become the top apple picker. If his extreme efforts to become the best in a given field are nullified by a system that will give extra to someone who isn’t as good at it so that they can be as good as Steve, why bother with putting in that effort?
So yes, Steve is harmed by stealing his motivation and (potential) recognition by making the system anti-meritocracy and more about everyone being the same.
The equation changes when we live in a post scarcity society, but we didn’t live in one. Therefore we have motivational pressure to find a niche we are good at and exploit it to survive. Taking away that niche you might be talented at while others aren’t as talented, harm those people who now don’t have that niche to exploit.
Even in a post-scarcity world, where we have unlimited access to energy (and thus can create anything we need), the motivation for social recognition through innate talent and ability is going to drive the human race forward. Taking that away kills the human spirit and possibly the human race.
I bet you are against designer babies/gene editing to give a child a huge advantage over it’s peers, right? Because that is the logical conclusion of this metaphor and “justice.” Genetically engineering every baby to have equal access to abilities and talent.
I posted this to a comment further down, but thought I should post it up here:
At birth there are situations that give people advantages that have nothing to do with ability. These advantages are systemic, where certain people will have better access to opportunity (apples) than others. The goal should be that the opportunities are equal so no one has a head start. The best apple picker will pick more apples instead of the person born with an orchard and apple picking machinery who very well may be a shit apple picker.
For your example, we’d end up with the best musicians becoming popular, not the ones where their parent could afford to give them private lessons since childhood and had industry connections to make them big where they wouldn’t otherwise.
It’s not about equality of outcomes, it’s about equality of opportunity. No one should start a race with a head start because then you don’t know who the best runner is. Everyone should start equally and everyone should have equal access to the same shoes, equipment, and practice opportunity, otherwise we can’t see who’s actually best without an advantage.
The data I am interested in is on postings that are whinging about postings that are whinging. It’s the metawhinge factor that really measures the health of a community
I mean I’ve been posting Moldy Memes on the memes page. Mainly just to share my ancient saved stuff, and to help boost the meme page up with more posts. I do understand the frustration, but hopefully more, active users will come around.
I would assume so. But I see quite some organic content as well, with good interactions in the comment sections. I’m pretty happy. 90% of what was on reddit was of no interest to me as tends to be the case with any large content aggregator.
My feed has zero memes (except those form !risa which obv do not qualify as “low effort”). I think unlike with Reddit, what you see if what you subscribe to. If you don’t like what you’re seeing, change your subscriptions. Not having Reddit force stuff into the feed is nice but it also means everyone is fully responsible for what they’re seeing.
I think unlike with Reddit, what you see if what you subscribe to.
This was also the case with Reddit, unless you intentionally went to /r/all? Or am I misunderstanding you? To clarify I always used RIF or went to old.reddit and was never force-fed any content from outside my subscriptions, when I stuck to the home-page.
If you don’t like what you’re seeing, change your subscriptions. Not having Reddit force stuff into the feed is nice but it also means everyone is fully responsible for what they’re seeing.
You make a good point, but I think here’s where the current downside of Lemmy comes in, discoverability between instances are pretty bothersome and not easily handled unless you again, go to your instance /all and check what other communities other people on the instance are subscribed to.
Trying to prune and maintain the All feed is a huge task at the moment, especially since some content might be the type of stuff you want to see sometimes, so just blocking News or Memes isn’t a perfect solution.
Having Tags for posts for easier filtering would be great, but right now sticking to a carefully selected subscribed feed has been easier, for me at least.
There are some apps - like Connect and Sync - that allow filtering keywords, domains and entire instances, should you want to try to control your All feed.
Better yet, Lemmy should get the much asked for ability to filter out keywords from our feeds. Musk, Twitter and reddit would be blocked immediately. I’m so sick of them.
For any lurker out there: a lot of it is just mental. It can be a hurdle to get over the first few times, but once you start posting and getting responses it feels more like a conversation than a feed, and you can get more out of it.
I lurked exclusively on Reddit because there were too many people to be able to talk to anyone (there’s a Yogiism for you). It’s all just a series of comments there.
So give it a chance, see if you like it some more. There are plenty of nice, knowledgeable and talkative people here to meet.
You perfectly describe how it felt on Reddit to comment and what turned me into a lurker after the years went by. Doing my best to be more active on Lemmy to help get this thing growing!
First comment for me! 11 years on Reddit, never talked much but lurked a lot. I can’t use their official app so I’m here now and looking forward to see the community grow!
I’m in a similar boat. Was a big lurker on Reddit for a decade and finally made the switch once Apollo went down. Really like the vibe of Lemmy so far!
I guess sort of, but I think of it as being afraid of the darkness itself, or the things that might (or might not be) out there when it gets dark. Like they’re totally connected but still two separate fears, you know?
The big difference here is that I know the cost. Getting into a cab it was always kind of blind, and a cab driver definitely tried to screw me one time by driving in circles (we were very drunk, and I noticed at some point we hadn’t made it very far, so I started paying attention and it was clear pretty quickly that he had circled back almost to where he had picked us up).
Also when I lived out in Queens, cabs rarely came out there. I had to hike all the way to Queens Blvd to have a chance, and even then they would barely stop at night. Would often get told to “get out” when asking for them to take me back to Queens. I’ve even been able to get a Uber out almost out in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night.
Lyft/Uber definitely has their problems, but cabs weren’t some shining beacon on the hill.
Uber can drive in circles and up your fare too… They have per ride, mile, and minute fare just like taxis. The coverage thing is just a problem with New York’s medallion system. But also, speaking from experience, rideshare drivers can and will refuse rides into places they don’t want to go. The difference is you’re talking with dispatch instead of a single driver so they get replaced without you knowing anything. Traditional taxi companies also have a dispatcher you can call and they will handle the recalcitrant drivers, but they may also negotiate a dead head fee.
But guess what? Uber and Lyft build dead heading directly into their fee structure. If you go out of the zone you pay an extra fee so the driver isn’t completely out of luck making money.
Uber and Lyft really are just digital dispatchers for privately run taxis.
That wasn’t true in the beginning, they did that because drivers were refusing rides. And drivers still try to conflate the expected fare with distance and even cancel rides after seeing the destination. Yes they can get removed if they do that too much but that doesn’t stop it from happening.
I dunno about you guys, but using a rideshare app, I’ve been canceled on numerous times, by multiple drivers. Often at the last minute, when maybe he app thinks they’re taking too long to reach me? I had a driver I was watching get closer and closer to me, and when they were around the corner the app changed my driver to someone a couple miles away. That shit didn’t happen with taxis because we weren’t reliant on some shitty algorithm that is only coldly making the most rides happen per minute to get higher margins for the company.
There are definitely drawbacks to the old school cab system, but I don’t like the app system. Sure, the meter would go up as you drive and sometimes you’d have to have an idea of where you’re going to not get screwed by a dishonest driver, but the app also randomly charges way more for the same ride depending on the app’s fuckin mood.
Crazy what we’ve let private companies do just because they marginally made our lives somewhat more convenient (on the surface).
I’ve taken hundreds of ubers and it’s always been within cents of the price I was quoted. I’ve taken hundreds of cab rides and only a handful of times was in given a price before hand.
I think it’s fair to say I know the price when it comes to an Uber and even if they can drive around to raise the price, it’s going to be obvious.
And on that note, at an airport near me there is a close by convenience store and if the Uber doesn’t want to take the fair, it’s know they will sit in there and wait for the customer to cancel it so they don’t get the hit. I’ve had it happen to me, contacted uber, and they gave me a discount on my next ride. I’m sure they don’t want to give away money, so I assume they are dealing with the driver at that point.
And I’ve had hundreds of cab rides that were just fine, and the fare was exactly what I expected. You cannot come in here comparing the excesses of one system against the normal usage of the other system and not get called on it.
“what I expected” please expand. Other than maybe having done the trip before a number of times (which would account for a tiny fraction of the rides I took), and even then time of day would affect the price, I really had very little idea what the ride would cost, especially if we’re talking within cents.
Left panels are regarding Black mirror, where the guy becomes famous by ranting about the system and threatning to kill himself if his life didn’t get meaning. Ended up becoming the meaningless entertainment himself in exchange for more money and better living
Left side: Black mirror S01E02 “fifteen million merits” . A guy tries to “break the system” but this backfires and his critic that was supposed to change people’s minds is absorbed by it and turned into an entertainment product. The upper-left image shows the moment in the episode where he criticizes the system threatening to kill himself while the bottom one shows the final image of the episode where he how lives in an expensive suite
Right side: “Being ugly : My Experience” A youtube video of a guy explaining how his unattractiveness has biased his life and brought unhappiness upon him. A reason why this became viral, besides the obvious connection by many due to the topic was that a girl commented that she found the guy of the video very cute and they actually became a couple
The meme: It compares both cases implying that the guy on the right was breaking the system but that his cause was “silenced” by providing him a girlfriend and turning him into a channel that lectures people on having hope about the prospect of finding a suitable partner
I love vague conversations. It really seals the entire argument, don’t you think?
(Just in case you’re really as slow as your comments imply you are, I am specifically telling you that you are wrong and we all know you’re refusing to provide any actual evidence whatsoever, because you also know you’re wrong)
Giordano went on to say that while only 10-15 percent of the population is gay, he estimates that a third or more of Disney’s writers are gay, and they “lean into gay and transgender stories.”
Giordano even focused on his career moving forward, saying he is “one step below being a department head,” but as far as Disney is concerned, he’s only “a white male.”
Now, Ive proven I can read an article. Can you do the same?
Giordano went on to say that while only 10-15 percent of the population is gay, he estimates that a third or more of Disney’s writers are gay, and they “lean into gay and transgender stories.”
Giordano even focused on his career moving forward, saying he is “one step below being a department head,” but as far as Disney is concerned, he’s only “a white male.”
Edit: let me clarify, as someone who has served under that flag I fully support people’s right to burn it to show their frustrations with our system. Burning the flag is a very powerful statement and in an ideal world we would find out why the flag is being burnt and attempt to address the grievance though I doubt that actually happens.
Ding ding ding. Anyone who claims to love this country but thinks this should be illegal is outright lying, and they can go fuck themselves. This is one of our most fundamental rights.
How so? Many people want to use AI in privacy, but it’s too hard for most people to set it up for themselves currently.
Having AI tools on the OS level so you can use it in almost any app and that is guaranteed to be processed on device in privacy will be very useful if done right.
Their keynotes are irrelevant, their official privacy policies and legal disclosures take precedence over marketing claims or statements made in keynotes or presentations. Apple’s privacy policy states that the company collects data necessary to provide and improve its products and services. The OS-level AI would fall under this category, allowing Apple to collect data processed by the AI for improving its functionality and models. Apple’s keynotes and marketing materials do not carry legal weight when it comes to their data practices. With the AI system operating at the OS level, it likely has access to a wide range of user data, including text inputs, conversations, and potentially other sensitive information.
Unless you are designing and creating your own chips for processing, networking etc, then privacy today is about trust, not technology. There’s no escaping it. I know iPhone and Apple is collecting data about me. I currently trust them the most on how they use it.
There are degrees of trust though. You can trust the developers and people who audited the code if you have no skill/desire to audit it yourself, or you can trust just the developers.
And even closed systems’ behavior can be monitored and analyzed.
Yes definitely, Apple claimed that their privacy could be independently audited and verified; we will have to wait and see what’s actually behind that info.
Apple claimed that their privacy could be independently audited and verified.
How? The only way to truly be able to do that to a 100% verifiable degree is if it were open source, and I highly doubt Apple would do that, especially considering it’s OS level integration. At best, they’d probably only have a self-report mechanism which would also likely be proprietary and therefore not verifiable in itself.
All I have seen from security persons reviewing this is that it will probably be one of the best solutions of its kind - they basically do almost everything correctly, and extensively so.
They could have provided even more source code and easier ways for third parties to verify their claims, but it is understandable that they didn’t, is the only critique I’ve seen.
However, to process more sophisticated requests, Apple Intelligence needs to be able to enlist help from larger, more complex models in the cloud. For these cloud requests to live up to the security and privacy guarantees that our users expect from our devices, the traditional cloud service security model isn’t a viable starting point. Instead, we need to bring our industry-leading device security model, for the first time ever, to the cloud.
As stated above, Private cloud compute has nothing to do with the OS level AI itself. ರ_ರ That’s in the cloud not on device.
While we’re publishing the binary images of every production PCC build, to further aid research we will periodically also publish a subset of the security-critical PCC source code.
As stated here, it still has the same issue of not being 100% verifiable, they only publish a few code snippets they deam “security-critical”, it doesn’t allow us to verify the handling of user data.
It’s difficult to provide runtime transparency for AI in the cloud.
Cloud AI services are opaque: providers do not typically specify details of the software stack they are using to run their services, and those details are often considered proprietary. Even if a cloud AI service relied only on open source software, which is inspectable by security researchers, there is no widely deployed way for a user device (or browser) to confirm that the service it’s connecting to is running an unmodified version of the software that it purports to run, or to detect that the software running on the service has changed.
Adding to what it says here, if the on device AI is compromised in anyway, be it from an attacker or Apple themselves then PCC is rendered irrelevant regardless if PCC were open source or not.
Additionally, I’ll raise the issue that this entire blog is nothing but just that a blog, nothing stated here is legally binding, so any claims of how they handled user data is irrelevant and can easily be dismissed as marketing.
Security / privacy on device: Don’t use devices / OS you don’t trust. I don’t see what difference on-device AI have at all here. If you don’t trust your device / OS then no functionality or data is safe.
Security / privacy in the cloud: The take here is that Apples proposed implementation is better than 99% of every cloud service out there. AI or not isn’t really part of it. If you already don’t trust Apple then this is moot. Don’t use cloud services from providers you don’t trust.
Security and privacy in 2024 is unfortunately about trust, not technology, unless you are able to isolate yourself or design and produce all the chips you use yourself.
Yeah and apple is completely untrustworthy like any other corporation, my point exactly. Idk about you, but I’ll stick to what I can verify the security & privacy of for myself, e.g. Ollama, GrapheneOS, Linux, Coreboot, Libreboot/Canoeboot, etc.
Ok, I just don’t see the relevance to this post then. Sure, you’re fine to rant about Apple in any thread you want to, it’s just not particularly relevant to AI, which was the technology in question here.
I hear good things about GrapheneOS but just stay away from it because of all the stranger. I love Olan’s.
How are you going to be able to use it in “almost any app” in a way that is secure? How are you going to design it so that the apps don’t abuse the AI to get more information on the user out of it than intended? Seems pretty damn inherently insecure to me.
Malicious actors could potentially exploit vulnerabilities in the AI system to gain unauthorized access or control over device functions and data, potentially leading to severe privacy breaches, unauthorized data access, or even the ability to inject malicious content or commands through the AI system.
Privacy breaches are possible if the AI system is compromised, exposing user data, activities, and conversations processed by the AI.
Integrating AI functionality deeply into the operating system increases the overall attack surface, providing more potential entry points for malicious actors to exploit vulnerabilities and gain unauthorized access or control.
Human reviewers have access to annotate and process user conversations for improving the AI models. To effectively train and improve the AI models powering the OS-level integration, Apple would likely need to collect and process user data, such as text inputs, conversations, and interactions with the AI.
Apple’s privacy policy states that the company collects data necessary to provide and improve its products and services. The OS-level AI would fall under this category, allowing Apple to collect data processed by the AI for improving its functionality and models.
Despite privacy claims, Apple has a history of collecting various types of user data, including device usage, location, health data, and more, as outlined in their privacy policies.
If Apple partners with third-party AI providers, there is a possibility of user data being shared or accessed by those entities, as permitted by Apple’s privacy policy.
With the AI system operating at the OS level, it likely has access to a wide range of user data, including text inputs, conversations, and potentially other sensitive information. This raises privacy concerns about how this data is handled, stored, and potentially shared or accessed by the AI provider or other parties.
Lack of transparency for users about when and how their data is being processed by the AI system & users not being fully informed about data collection related to the AI. Additionally, if the AI integration is controlled solely at the OS level, users may have limited control over enabling or disabling this functionality.
Yeah just like Microsoft Recall right? An AI that has access to every single thing you do (and would also be recording, otherwise how does it know “you”) can never be private by design. Its literal design is to know everything about you, your actions, and your habits. I wouldn’t trust anyone to be able to create an actually secure piece of software that does the above. It will always be able to be stolen/sold/abused.
That’s fair, but you are misunderstanding the technology if you’re bashing the AI from Apple for making macOS less secure. Most likely, it will be just as secure as for example their password functionality, although we don’t have details yet. You either trust the OS or not.
Microsoft Recall was designed so badly, there’s no hope for it.
I simply don’t, and wouldn’t trust Apple. They will tell you they are all about privacy, and happily sell your data behind your back. Just like any other company.
I thought the original post was satire - list all of the privacy issues, then throw in “Privacy <3” at the end. Seriously, almost every one of those points has a potential privacy issue.
lemmy.world
Top