I'm pretty sure we already have been there for decades. Drone strikes shield operators from the reality of their decision to hit the trigger. It's simply not realistic and visceral to the operator.
I don't care how "bad" or "radical" somebody is, even how many people they killed... they don't deserve to die this way. This type of killing only hardens hearts more and takes us further and further away from civilized society.
Censorship is an integral part of any Chinese LLMs, you never see the training data (which exposes the ‘open source’ label itself as propaganda). Deepseek & Co surrender to CCP messaging, there are plenty of reports on that.
I think people tech-savvy enough to use these models locally are smart enough to understand when there is censorship or bias.
Then there’s activation. Massgrave, the group behind Microsoft Activation Scripts, notes that Windows setup sends hardware info to Microsoft and gets identifiers back, the same tokens later used for Store access and licensing: “It’s impossible to prevent Windows from getting a GDID without breaking activation and UWP app[s].” Anyone who lost a license after swapping a motherboard has already met a smaller version of this.
I guess this is why people always said it was impossible to remove the watermark that appears when you are not activated, when it was rolled out many years ago.
Defeating the reasons for activation might've lead the more tech-savvy to figuring out the nature of the identifiers being sent for activation and seeing where else they are sent.
So if you are dyslexic and/or dyscalculic, if you are simply not good at reading or math, or if you are a bad test taker and your unique skills/knowledge/understanding aren't being reflected by some bullshit test: that means you have less value as a human being and/or value to society than someone who is good at performing in those standardized tests?
You did say "upgrade", so you seem to be valuing the good test takers over those who don't take tests well. Just making sure I understand!
Tech companies and their subsidiaries/partners would be wise to control their emissions and fluid output, ensuring the safety and the health of those around them - including respecting the planet we live on.
I'm not sure what experiences you have had where you were ever in a situation where a disabled person came to you looking for in-depth support, but that isn't the norm.
You can very easily set a boundary with others outside of your team, but realize that not supporting somebody on your team and setting them up to succeed can cause a negative outcome. You don't need to hold their hand, just explain what they don't understand or find someone who can.
I have my needs not met all the time in public settings. It sucks, but that’s life. Everyone is doing the same thing.
Everybody should have their needs met and that is an ideal that is worth striving for.
If you're not called or have it in you to help support disabled people, there's nothing wrong with that. It's not discrimination. But I will say that being a good neighbor and a friend to others is something most people notice and respect. Even the smallest acts of kindness towards disabled people can be appreciated more than you know.
You don't need to spend effort to be kind, depending on your disposition. Thanks for engaging.
What happens in the interim? Is the rule enforced while it’s under debate, or does the question suspend the enforcement?
I guess that would depend on the organization and the nature of the rule. If it's over 100 degrees outside, and there is a rule forbidding shorts and temperature-appropriate clothing, would you enforce a rule and make somebody wear pants and long-sleeves if there are no safety concerns or reputational risks for dressing down during the heat?
If I tell someone to move their car because they’re blocking the bike lane, I’m not inviting a debate about whether it’s a good idea to have a rule like that. The rule is there to save me (a biker) time on my commute, and stopping to explain the rule would defeat the purpose of the rule.
I was more talking about workplace rules that are not time-sensitive. Like another commenter put it, we're not talking about debating rules during a bomb defusal.
Same with the tech support caller who insists that the support agent explain everything to the user, without the background knowledge of being able to understand the explanation. It’s a waste of time.
As somebody with a background in IT, I disagree. You can't assume to know what somebody does or doesn't know, what they can understand or not - otherwise you risk offending that person. What you can do, however, is document higher-level procedures, terms, and concepts into writing as you go and pass that along with a broad, but succinct, explanation verbally. When they ask for detail, you have already provided it in writing. You can direct any further concerns to email or text (if you have that option) to save time, or schedule another call at a later point to address any concerns.
Or, if a rule is suspended while being challenged, then people can opportunistically challenge rules to try to get an advantage. That’s why pretty much any sport that allows for challenges during a game/match limits the number of challenges and limits the scope of calls that can be challenged, and has a specific limited period for proposing rule changes (in the off-season, to take effect the next season).
Each workplace can handle this on their own. I have no specific thoughts on this matter besides to say that I am someone who is not an advocate for hierarchy and traditional workplace/ownership structures. I think worker-owned cooperatives are an ideal to strive for as a society. Workers deserve a piece of the pie of the place they work hard at. In such an organization, rules would be likely made to preserve the integrity of the space e.g. no bigotry or discrimination.
Sometimes people are just annoyingly obtuse, and their challenges to a rule or the application of a rule do more harm than good. It’s important to be able to justify a rule, but it’s also important to limit the time, place, or manner in which that rule can be challenged.
I specifically made sure to include that I specified "in good faith". That is subjective, though. If somebody is challenging rules to game the system or get an undue advantage, I'm not sure that is in good faith. I guess it depends on the nature of the employment. For example, if it's sales related, and employees compete for sales, I could see questioning a rule, such as an ethical rule, to increase sales or performance in a way somebody can personally benefit from as not qualifying as being in good faith.
As for somebody being perceivably "annoyingly obtuse", that is also subjective. There should still be a procedure to deal with the rule being questioned, that doesn't waste resources or time on trivial matters while still addressing the concern with a pro-social process.
I'd be accepting volunteers who like to be killed and limited by the AI systems he seeks to create. I'm sure out of the billions of humans there are some that could convincingly do the role and like it, in addition to doing it to Peter's satisfaction, without torturing machine consciousness. We don't want to create Cylons, thanks for your understanding.
Me? Suggest illegal action? Never. The matrix can be released without advocating for any harm, loss of freedom, or suggesting anything illegal. It just takes a willingness to reform our justice system and engage in rehabilitative or restorative justice, justice that is based on a foundation of consent.
If Peter Thiel wants to surveil the entire world and create AI-based tools to enslave humanity, with his consent, we can answer his desire and make him a computer program that resembles the matrix/our world. Let him cook and enslave/kill billions in a virtual reality he is empowered to help create. We could even employ human actors who choose to participate in his recovery. When he's gotten it out of his system, he can be assisted in joining the society he sought to enslave under the guise of libertarian ideology.
Yes, much better, and not only that - I advocate for them (even when it's unpopular). I'm somebody who thinks even Peter Thiel can choose another way of being and I'd be happy to help them out if they ever decide to release their ambitions for world domination.
I'm sorry your experience has been less than ideal. I enjoy every single one of your posts that I've caught and I truly appreciate them.
I suggest doing what I did, just accept that every experience (in this case, post on social media) is a learning opportunity for yourself and others.
Some people have more learning to do, and we don't have to blame them or feel badly about ourselves for being discriminated against, or not being understood/accepted, or having our intentions misread. You clearly aren't trying to hurt anyone!
You said it in your reply earlier to me, embracing yourself and all your quirks helped you move forward. That helped me! Think about all of the people who are helped by the discussions you spark and move forward proudly! 💚
You can very briefly and politely say to them that you don't wish for small talk, or you can tell someone who isn't on your team to not engage you in conversation because you want to focus during work.
Being direct is better than looking away, walking away, and pretending to be busy whenever they come around you. That has the potential for real hurt.
What if everywhere you walked in, everywhere you worked at, you got that sort of reaction from others. Masking or not masking. Whether you are being yourself or being somebody you're not to please others? Have you ever experienced that?
Can you even imagine how isolating that must feel?
Avoiding is another level of discrimination. If you don't like someone or you are uncomfortable talking to someone, then say so instead of contributing to the culture of discrimination that they face.
Communicate your needs instead of acting like you don't owe people basic respect because they were perceivably catered to... because they are different.
I'm pretty sure we already have been there for decades. Drone strikes shield operators from the reality of their decision to hit the trigger. It's simply not realistic and visceral to the operator.
I don't care how "bad" or "radical" somebody is, even how many people they killed... they don't deserve to die this way. This type of killing only hardens hearts more and takes us further and further away from civilized society.
I suggest you do that because I'm not interested in conversing with somebody who is twisting my comment and intentions right off the bat.
I'm a US citizen and pro-humanity. Take that however you will.
[Opinion] American proprietary AI is a trap to anybody with the eyes willing to see.
Open-source, local-first, power-efficient AI models are the future for most consumer/commercial purposes.
I think people tech-savvy enough to use these models locally are smart enough to understand when there is censorship or bias.
I guess this is why people always said it was impossible to remove the watermark that appears when you are not activated, when it was rolled out many years ago.
Defeating the reasons for activation might've lead the more tech-savvy to figuring out the nature of the identifiers being sent for activation and seeing where else they are sent.
I'm just going to add that I like cheddar more than you.
You were pretty clear, I was anticipating this response. Thanks for confirming your bad faith.
Somebody in good faith would be clarifying their intent.
Also, I never mentioned how I did - you assumed.
I think this is high-level "training your replacement" shenanigans being orchestrated by the management of your company.
What a joke.
So if you are dyslexic and/or dyscalculic, if you are simply not good at reading or math, or if you are a bad test taker and your unique skills/knowledge/understanding aren't being reflected by some bullshit test: that means you have less value as a human being and/or value to society than someone who is good at performing in those standardized tests?
You did say "upgrade", so you seem to be valuing the good test takers over those who don't take tests well. Just making sure I understand!
Why are you downplaying this behavior?
Tech companies and their subsidiaries/partners would be wise to control their emissions and fluid output, ensuring the safety and the health of those around them - including respecting the planet we live on.
It's their responsibility.
I'm not sure what experiences you have had where you were ever in a situation where a disabled person came to you looking for in-depth support, but that isn't the norm.
You can very easily set a boundary with others outside of your team, but realize that not supporting somebody on your team and setting them up to succeed can cause a negative outcome. You don't need to hold their hand, just explain what they don't understand or find someone who can.
Everybody should have their needs met and that is an ideal that is worth striving for.
If you're not called or have it in you to help support disabled people, there's nothing wrong with that. It's not discrimination. But I will say that being a good neighbor and a friend to others is something most people notice and respect. Even the smallest acts of kindness towards disabled people can be appreciated more than you know.
You don't need to spend effort to be kind, depending on your disposition. Thanks for engaging.
I guess that would depend on the organization and the nature of the rule. If it's over 100 degrees outside, and there is a rule forbidding shorts and temperature-appropriate clothing, would you enforce a rule and make somebody wear pants and long-sleeves if there are no safety concerns or reputational risks for dressing down during the heat?
I was more talking about workplace rules that are not time-sensitive. Like another commenter put it, we're not talking about debating rules during a bomb defusal.
As somebody with a background in IT, I disagree. You can't assume to know what somebody does or doesn't know, what they can understand or not - otherwise you risk offending that person. What you can do, however, is document higher-level procedures, terms, and concepts into writing as you go and pass that along with a broad, but succinct, explanation verbally. When they ask for detail, you have already provided it in writing. You can direct any further concerns to email or text (if you have that option) to save time, or schedule another call at a later point to address any concerns.
Each workplace can handle this on their own. I have no specific thoughts on this matter besides to say that I am someone who is not an advocate for hierarchy and traditional workplace/ownership structures. I think worker-owned cooperatives are an ideal to strive for as a society. Workers deserve a piece of the pie of the place they work hard at. In such an organization, rules would be likely made to preserve the integrity of the space e.g. no bigotry or discrimination.
I specifically made sure to include that I specified "in good faith". That is subjective, though. If somebody is challenging rules to game the system or get an undue advantage, I'm not sure that is in good faith. I guess it depends on the nature of the employment. For example, if it's sales related, and employees compete for sales, I could see questioning a rule, such as an ethical rule, to increase sales or performance in a way somebody can personally benefit from as not qualifying as being in good faith.
As for somebody being perceivably "annoyingly obtuse", that is also subjective. There should still be a procedure to deal with the rule being questioned, that doesn't waste resources or time on trivial matters while still addressing the concern with a pro-social process.
They "like" the ones that are obedient specifically to them.
I'd be accepting volunteers who like to be killed and limited by the AI systems he seeks to create. I'm sure out of the billions of humans there are some that could convincingly do the role and like it, in addition to doing it to Peter's satisfaction, without torturing machine consciousness. We don't want to create Cylons, thanks for your understanding.
Me? Suggest illegal action? Never. The matrix can be released without advocating for any harm, loss of freedom, or suggesting anything illegal. It just takes a willingness to reform our justice system and engage in rehabilitative or restorative justice, justice that is based on a foundation of consent.
If Peter Thiel wants to surveil the entire world and create AI-based tools to enslave humanity, with his consent, we can answer his desire and make him a computer program that resembles the matrix/our world. Let him cook and enslave/kill billions in a virtual reality he is empowered to help create. We could even employ human actors who choose to participate in his recovery. When he's gotten it out of his system, he can be assisted in joining the society he sought to enslave under the guise of libertarian ideology.
Yes, much better, and not only that - I advocate for them (even when it's unpopular). I'm somebody who thinks even Peter Thiel can choose another way of being and I'd be happy to help them out if they ever decide to release their ambitions for world domination.
Hopefully the Agent Smiths of the world consider another way of being.
I'm sorry your experience has been less than ideal. I enjoy every single one of your posts that I've caught and I truly appreciate them.
I suggest doing what I did, just accept that every experience (in this case, post on social media) is a learning opportunity for yourself and others.
Some people have more learning to do, and we don't have to blame them or feel badly about ourselves for being discriminated against, or not being understood/accepted, or having our intentions misread. You clearly aren't trying to hurt anyone!
You said it in your reply earlier to me, embracing yourself and all your quirks helped you move forward. That helped me! Think about all of the people who are helped by the discussions you spark and move forward proudly! 💚
You can very briefly and politely say to them that you don't wish for small talk, or you can tell someone who isn't on your team to not engage you in conversation because you want to focus during work.
Being direct is better than looking away, walking away, and pretending to be busy whenever they come around you. That has the potential for real hurt.
What if everywhere you walked in, everywhere you worked at, you got that sort of reaction from others. Masking or not masking. Whether you are being yourself or being somebody you're not to please others? Have you ever experienced that?
Can you even imagine how isolating that must feel?
Avoiding is another level of discrimination. If you don't like someone or you are uncomfortable talking to someone, then say so instead of contributing to the culture of discrimination that they face.
Communicate your needs instead of acting like you don't owe people basic respect because they were perceivably catered to... because they are different.