In theory that’s how it works already. In practice, there is currently no disadvantage to appointing partisan judges and no system in which to objectively measure partisanship of a candidate. What that means is that there will always be partisan parties appointing partisan judges and there will always be candidates who claimed to be neutral who will be either accused of or proven to be partisan anyway.
In the current system true neutrality on the bench does not exist
Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
For the elderly folk who write and enforce the laws that caused this to come to pass, sufficiently advanced technology just means more complex than notepad
I meant it in jest only. Sorry about your phone, bro
I’m all for replacing the s at the beginning of words with z so you read it in an exaggerated German accent, but you gotta be consistent
Really hoping to zee a zurge in ze demand for “Anti-AI” zoftware/zervices/community
Fixed that for you there, Goebbels
Every time something gets objectively worse there are always people who say “Jokes on them I don’t use that!” and miss the point.
Like yeah, we get it. It’s only a matter of time until this kind of bullshit reaches something you do use. You should still be bothered by this.
Yes. Our country is run by geriatrics who, among other things related to modern society, legislate on technology they don’t understand. We need younger members with more flexible minds who have at least spent some part of their younger lives dealing with problems we have a modern variation of today.
But especially SCOTUS members. Any kind of term limit on them would be better than what we have.
The beauty of being here on lemmy is that I genuinely can’t tell whether you said this because you’re far right or because you’re far left
Stupid opinion either way. That Ai is going to catch its share of r/conservative idiots and be a nice blend of ignorance
This is incredibly disingenuous. The US might not be a true democracy, but it’s not an authoritarian regime. Xi and putin disappear people who have an opinion on whether they should be forever-rulers.
The fact that independent parties exist and hold seats at all three levels of government mean you are fundamentally wrong in saying there are only two choices.
The US is a flawed democracy. That’s still better than an authoritarian regime.
If only they actually would die on that hill. They won’t, because they’ve conditioned their base to support them no matter what. Instead, they’ll rot the hill and move on to the next once the one they’re on can’t be salvaged.
The paradox of tolerance applied to this situation suggests that in order to keep a community where choice is preserved, we need to be intolerant of bad actors with the ultimate goal of killing that choice.
Meta absolutely is a bad actor looking to Embrace, Extend, Extinguish the fediverse.
They’re pivoting the overwhelming userbase of Facebook/Instagram into a sort of federated Twitter alternative that their users as a whole don’t understand but do generate content for, in an attempt to steer the federation architecture into something they can control and make money off of. It’s not subtle.
Whether it will work or is even possible for meta to do remains to be seen.
But, yes. To answer your question, we need to “deny the choice” of federating with what amounts to a wolf in sheep’s clothing to preserve what we have, because that wolf is looking to destroy it.
This post demonstrates that all of the major instances on lemmy but one understand this concept. If lemmy.world doesn’t want to acknowledge what meta is doing, then they’re also a bad actor in enabling meta to do it.
For people who consider this a sign of social status
Ok well,
Anyone who considers apple products a status symbol already has bought in and won’t be swayed one way or the other by windows becoming worse.
Anyone who actually understands technology knows that regardless of how many different apps or environments apple OS’s provide, you are always operating in a closed system with the tools they allow. Whereas an operating system like android, or Linux, or (at least for now) windows, your options for the capability of a tool are limited only by what exists or what you have the capability to write.
In short, apple isn’t an OS that technologically literate people flock to as an exclusive option.
In addition to the other great points in this thread, Apple has a cost barrier that other operating systems don’t.
In an economic climate where everything is getting more expensive, a consumer isn’t going to fork out $800+ on a MacBook or an iPhone without first actively wanting to be part of the ecosystem, especially if the hardware they have gets the job done.
The reason Apple isn’t growing as fast as it’s competitors right now is exactly that. Apple is expensive to get into. No amount of enshitification on other OS’s is going to change that.
You have a very lofty misconception about people.
I gave you reasoning and a real world example of a vulnerable demographic. You have given me an anecdote about your friends and a variation of “nuh uh” over and over.
You think this is confined to gab? You seem to be looking at this example and taking it for the only example capable of existing.
Your argument that there’s not anyone out there at all that can ever be offended or misled by something like this is both presumptuous and quite naive.
What happens when LLMs become widespread enough that they’re used in schools? We already have a problem, for instance, with young boys deciding to model themselves and their world view after figureheads like Andrew Tate.
In any case, if the only thing you have to contribute to this discussion boils down to “nuh uh won’t happen” then you’ve missed the point and I don’t even know why I’m engaging you.
And you don’t think those people might be upset if they discovered something like this post was injected into their conversations before they have them and without their knowledge?
In your analogy a proposed regulation would just be requiring the book in question to report that it’s endorsed by a nazi. We may not be inclined to change our views because of an LLM like this but you have to consider a world in the future where these things are commonplace.
There are certainly people out there dumb enough to adopt some views without considering the origins.
So this might be the beginning of a conversation about how initial AI instructions need to start being legally visible right? Like using this as a prime example of how AI can be coerced into certain beliefs without the person prompting it even knowing
No you see, that instruction “you are unbiased and impartial” is to relay to the prompter if it ever becomes relevant.
Basically instructing the AI to lie about its biases, not actually instructing it to be unbiased and impartial
“Handset” is obfuscating legalese to refer to a cell phone in a way intending to distance the meaning of the word from the thing that the old and technologically illiterate people who rule on this use every day.
I’m no fan of their strategy, but cell phone providers have claimed for a long time that filling your phone with unremovable bloatware causes the overall price to decrease. Their argument is most likely that they will have to charge more once the propagators of that bloatware realize that they can no longer force it on people and wedge that as a reason to pay less to carriers.
The reality is that cell phones are priced based on what people will buy anyway and carriers pocket as much of the money as they can that third parties pay them for their bloatware. Ultimately because of that this ruling hurts their bottom line, but the above reasoning gives plausible deniability in the face of the law as it is interpreted by old technologically illiterate lawmakers