No, literally a small-f fascist, the broader far-right authoritarian ideology named by reference to the Nazi’s Italian ideological cousins but which includes the Nazis among is defining examples, but not literally a member of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.
(Sure. “Nazi” is frequently used figuratively to mean “fascist”, but that's not “literally”. Except, perhaps, in the sense where literally is itself used figuratively as a intensifier for a figurative description, but at least not literally “literally”.)
> Many people working at frontier labs came out this week with estimates of 10% chance of catastrophic harm or greater.
The only reason people with P(Doom) of around 10% are even noticed these days because we've run out of new voices in the field giving 50%+ P(Doom) speculations (none of them are grounded enough to reasonably be referred to as "estimates".)
Probabilities are subjective states of belief! They have always been subjective states of belief! There is no such thing as a "probability" out there in the real world (ignoring random quantum stuff, which isn't what anybody is talking about). If you took out a coin right now and flipped it, the true odds of it coming up heads are not 50%, but those are (roughly) the correct betting odds for an external observer to assign to it.
“We can’t fight child porn on our platform because it is less moral to run a scanner that may produce false positives and either accept that this may result in blocking some content that isn’t child porn OR pay someone to look at content and verify whether or not it is child porn, so instead we just do the far more moral thing of allowing and profiting from the distribution of child porn" is an interesting, if not exactly convincing, argument.
> In quite a few countries, a false positive can lead to someone getting put in prison
That can only happen if it is either (1) used by government, or (2) used by private entities in a process flow that includes reports to government.
"There exist countries with criminal justice systems with weak enough standards of proof that a false positive on a scan alone would result in prison", even if 100% true, is not a justification for a firm not making efforts to block child porn distribution on its networks. (It is, OTOH, a justification for working to reform the criminal justice systems in those countries, but that is rather far from the topic here.)
Intentionally viewing what you think is child porn is a crime, but not catching it is not a crime. If you think it's stupid, lobby Congress to change the law.
> Intentionally viewing what you think is child porn is a crime
The entire argument for why verification was even an issue is that the allegedly the scan is not sufficient reason to actually believe that something is child pornoography. But whether or reviewing such a report may or may not be a crime in some jurisdiction somewhere on Earth, the certainty that arguments like that would detract from the point is the reason that of the two (moral and legal) issues raised in the post I responded to, I only said that one of them was ridiculous, and it wasn't the legal one.
NCMEC is the only organization legally allowed to view child porn. For everyone else, they have no legal way to verify. If you don't trust NCMEC to give correct results, the only legal option is not to play.
IME, most users of the term “AI slop” use it for all (identified) uses of AI because they believe that use of AI is itself inherently an indication of poor taste and low effort that invalidates the work independently of what quality the work would have viewed independently of the mode of creation.
There are definitely people who accept AI use generally who try to make “AI slop” a distinction within the universe of AI creation rather than a label for the entire universe of AI creation, but that seems to be a minority use of the term.
Sure, sounding damning is kind of the point of this kind of statement. But its also cheap and easy since there is no requirement that any of the claims are justified by any facts.
The amendment add verbiage which is irrelevant when the purpose for which it is being referenced is almost any purpose other than interpreting an RFC in which one or more of the specified words appear in lowercase in a place relevant to the interpretation.
Every time national ID gets moderately serious discussion it is revealed very clearly that yes, the people are against it.
RealID—which was simply national standardization of state issued ID (when used for a variety of important purposes) had intense resistance, too—and its the closest policy to national ID that has passed.
Social Security identifiers are not ID for the person, and anyway were adopted nearly a century ago at a moment of higher-than-current trust in the federal government.
It would help if the federal government didn’t show itself to abuse ID databases every time it gets ahold of one.
I don’t see how we could develop a national ID in an environment of such low trust (bidirectionally). You need a government that’s responsive to citizens and obeys constitutional guardrails, and citizens who trust the government to protect their best interests. We haven’t had that since the prior century (and last century the government was still breaking our trust, it just didn’t make the news).
People are against national IDs because of privacy, not racism like a previous comment in this thread suggested
People are against requiring certain types of IDs to vote as racism or other forms of voter suppression because it may cost money to get those IDs or be very very hard to do so, when there are other methods to authenticate a person for voting
Just to add a bit. In a few different places in the US I've had multiple ID offices within easy driving (or bus) distance and wait times ranged from short to annoying but bearable.
When I lived near the ghetto in a different state I had roughly 2 choices, one 30 minutes out and the other over an hour (by car without traffic). Bus? Hah! Have fun. Arriving at the nearer of the two within an hour or so of opening in the morning there was already a multi-hour line for service.
Don't worry though, there's definitely not any sort of institutional racism behind the various efforts to require certain forms of ID to vote. /s
before you could get a social security card replaced online I lived in a poor area and getting a replacement took most of the day between getting there and sitting in an awful waiting room for hours... god forbid you forgot something or they rejected your proof of identity and you had to do it all over again
> Imagine that suddenly each US state gets more sovereignty and they just... make different decisions. California adopts Spanish as second official language, New York adopts metric system, Alabama permits sister/brother marriages, Utah declares Mormonism as official religion, and Wyoming stops contributing to US army.
Only the last two would be noteworthy and currently not allowed. The US adopted the metric as an official system alongside the US Customary system in 1866, and as the preferred system in 1975 (and, in between, redefined the entire US Customary system from an independent system to a system of metric-derived units.)
The US has no official language in law (Trump issued an executive order purporting to establish one in 2025), but numerous states and territories have adopted official languages in law (mostly long before Trump's federal gesture) — mostly English, but several territories also designate one additional language (differing by territory) and the State of Alaska has 21 indigenous languages given status as official languages alongside English.
And while no state allows sibling marriages, US states do differ in degree of consanguinity allowed for marriage, with about a 50/50 split on whether first cousins can marry, and a handful of states having restrictions on second cousins as well.
Love when people do "imagine if" and its mostly stuff that is indistinguishable from the status quo.
(Sure. “Nazi” is frequently used figuratively to mean “fascist”, but that's not “literally”. Except, perhaps, in the sense where literally is itself used figuratively as a intensifier for a figurative description, but at least not literally “literally”.)
reply