That’s exactly right. Even if we made an AI that could give us the perfect solution and had accurate projections to back up its assertions, inevitably we’d reject it because we wouldn’t trust it fully. It cannot fix the often selfish nature of humans
Choosing Michael Ian Black for this is… a choice. Seems like he’s been losing fans left and right over the years with his aggressive political brigades on Twitter
^~ bat signal for Lina Khan ~^
Honestly can’t believe Google was so explicit in calling RCS an “open standard” and then turning around and doing this
ABC isn’t perceived as a partisan network, is it?
In that video it sure sounds like he says “I love you Christians, I’m not Christian”
Well, sure, but I’m sure most coal miners don’t feel super great about their specific job and profession generally. It’s a waste of resources and capital generally, not at a zoomed in level
I don’t think anyone cares if the VP is “too old” honestly. Most of the time it feels like the VP does things in the background and makes far less headlines. Case in point: Kamala Harris
That’s how culture and news works generally. There’s no stopping it really
Maybe this will save someone a click. Here’s the original source and here’s the full breakdown…
Honestly the 77% of independents strikes me as more important.
Intentions aside, it’s just some independent research that anyone can review and critique. If the research is bad then it should be pointed out and won’t be taken seriously, undermining any influence from Goldman Sachs now and in the future
Oh, sure, I didn’t mean to compare the two really. Just pointing out that although Twitter is simple and easy to replicate in concept, trying to scale to support all humans as users (theoretically) is difficult
To be fair, Twitter needs very good infrastructure to be usable (e.g. caching) and obviously content moderation is as robust as their investment in it (those could be contract workers though)
If Goldman Sachs said that, than most likely the opposite is true.
What makes you say that?
A spokesperson for TikTok told the BBC that it had increased its investment “in efforts to ensure reliable information can be found on TikTok”, launching a “UK Election Centre with a fact-checking expert” and adopting an “industry-leading AI labelling technology”.
I doubt this will move the needle. Ultimately TikTok was not built for news & politics specifically, and it seems like a robust fact-checking system would lead to less engagement overall. So it’s at odds with their primary objective
Alternatively, it could be very frustrating for people who need it. Computer-generated translations are often very bad compared to human ones, and image recognition adds another layer of complexity that will very likely lack nuance. It could create a false sense of accessibility with bad alt-text, and could make it more difficult to spot real alt-text if it isn’t being tagged or labeled as AI generated
Not at all: any company that wants to operate in a given country, has to follow that country’s laws, whether they like them or not.
Maybe in theory but not in practice. See: illegal dumping, tax evasion, labor violations, and many other things
The idea of breaking up a company is to make the space more competitive. Theoretically if YouTube had a proper competitor, then the decision to honor Kremlin requests would be more complicated, since it could lead to a loss of market share
When I tried that the button takes a photo and asks me where to save the JPG. But then when I select a folder it errs saying the image doesn’t exist.
I guess I’ll stick with the stock camera app
The sell is a screenless phone with an AI assistant