Patents aren’t given for what they do. They are given for how they do it. Two patents can exist for the same thing they do. But you cannot have two patents for the same mechanism by which they do it.
That being said, if the patent is “make AI do it”… I’m not sure that is patent-worthy.
“If we didn’t create the evil misinformation bot, someone else would have. You should be happy it was a massive corporation that controls this patent, not some soulest unethical entity whose motives are profit over everything. That was a close one. Phew.”
“But we didnt mean for those things to happen.” “We didnt design it for that.” “We cant be held responsible for the AI going rogue.”
Bro, if I sold you a chat bot that sometimes committed phishing attacks and stole your identity, do you think “We just wanted it to make it really good at personalized conversations by getting to know you” frees me from the liability of how it determined it should do that and what it was capable of doing to follow through with it?
This shit is happening in your own labs. You can’t isolate and maintain control over systems that are 100% under your ownership and management with a team of tech experts, and you think releasing this stuff to the general public won’t result in 1000 times worse outcomes? How is that not criminal negligence?
Have any of these AI CEOs, politicians or tech bros that try to rally behind a nationalistic “gotta win the AI race against China” ever explained what is actually consequential about this race in their view for anyone but themselves? Like other than your personal company’s outlook, your stock portfolio or your political influence/military usage over what is, best case scenario (being generous), a valuable and useful advanced tool for some types of work… what difference does it make to the average internet user if their AI chat bots or agents are developed in or run on data centers in the US or China?
Or more realistically, if they have the largest market share in the world, because there’s no lose state that means that the US AI companies can’t still exist… unless the AI companies keep pissing people off enough for the public to actually just shut down every data center.
It seems pretty clear that the only real motivation is an unimpeded return on their massive investments. China having market share in AI applications does not, inherently, threaten anyone’s safety any more than if they have a minority share in the market.
Don’t blame you. Shits fucked.
I don’t mean wipe your device of all data. I mean wipe any of your sensitive data. Keep your texts to friends, photos of your daughter, apps and stuff.
Fair.
Remember to turn off all biometrics for unlocking your phone, if not now, then at least when traveling internationally. They can scan your face or your fingerprint without a warrant. But they can’t compel you to provide potentially incriminating information including passwords, codes and patterns. Self-destruct codes will likely get you arrested for obstruction of justice and destruction of evidence though, so use those at your own risk. I wouldn’t recommend it.
Best to never keep anything you wouldn’t want a cop or fed seeing anywhere on your device. If you have any materials that you wish to keep private, store them elsewhere as much as possible. Either never store them on your device or regularly back them up somewhere secure and wipe your device clean. Make sure all remote access to those materials are behind secure encrypted password protected connections.
Remember, know the law so that you may follow it to its letter and no further. If you must comply, comply. If you can, don’t comply. Know your rights and practice them. Never volunteer information to law enforcement even if you’re innocent. You don’t know what they know, what they are wanting to hear, what can be misunderstood, confused or contorted to put you into trouble. Every day is shut the fuck up Friday. Nobody will protect you but you.
From a consumer freedom standpoint this is shitty. And it does allow them to sell an enthusiast model at a premium without competing with an after market modder.
But two things can be true. I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable for the company to want to protect the integrity of the brand if unreliable after market sellers start releasing bad product indistinguishable from your own with your logo slapped on it.
Even if you have authorized resellers entrusted with doing the upgrades and audited for quality, if you leave the door open, there will be unauthorized mods on the market too. It does hurt not only Raspberry Pi, but the entire resell market if you can’t trust the product to have their expected standard of quality. It still sucks, but I at least get the justification.
A few years back, I worked in an assembly plant for a car company. One time when I was doing a quality containment, I found out that something like 30-50 cars were found to have a very slightly misaligned roof piece when it was welded, and it causes a slight, but visible warp in the roof. It was otherwise fine. Still water proof, still structurally sound, just a cosmetic defect. They were all quarantined to be stripped of any easily removable components and then the remaining parts and body would be scrapped.
I asked why? Even if they didn’t want to put them out to dealers with a visible defect, they were still safe and functional. They could still offer them to employees for sale at a discount and make far more back for them than its value as scrap. The answer was that it could hurt the value of the brand as a whole if low quality cars were put on the market, even if only for resale. It was worth the loss of these 30+ cars to maintain a consumer’s high expectation of quality.
I still think it may have been better to allow employees an opportunity to get a new vehicle at a great price with only a cosmetic defect. But I do get the competing concern there. You do want things you buy from a big company to have reliable quality.
I’m here for the spirit, but your reading comprehension could use some work. The title doesn’t say it’s the dumbest thing he has done. It says he is doing this particular thing in the dumbest way.
Would be a shame if someone created a network of cameras tracking his every move and posted it online for free in real time. Nothing illegal about that, right? No implicit threat in that, right?
The people that are most likely to insert a sin or a vice or a ethics accusation at people loudly and often or when it makes the least sense are the people who are thinking about it constantly. For some of those people, the reason they think of it constantly is that it is there job to think about it, like law enforcement, journalists, social workers, etc. and they are trained to see the signs everywhere. For some others, they have personal traumas that cause them to see that trauma reflected at them at the slightest trigger.
But the other people, by and large, are those who are thinking about it constantly because they are constantly craving it and/or trying to find ways to get it. This is the “every accusation is an admission” crowd. Your sister in law who is obsessed with calling people out as thieves, who will swipe cash off your night stand without hesitation. Your “gays will burn in hell” preachers that get caught soliciting male prostitutes. Your “trans people are groomers” politicians who get arrested for CSAM. Whether it is shame over their desires that makes them genuinely angry or an attempt at subterfuge by going over the top against it so they don’t get in trouble, they are obsessed with the subject to the point that they either bring it up all the time or they shoehorn it in seemingly out of nowhere.
So any time I see someone like Elon, who has absolutely nothing to go on but a white guy existing in Thailand and children being involved, immediately come to the association of pedophilia… well he’s not a sex crimes cop or journalist is he? It makes me feel very confident that either he was a victim of child sex abuse, or someone who might be a perpetrator of it, or both (as is unfortunately very common). Pair that with his later revealed desires to go to Epstein’s island, and, frankly, what I would perceive as a halting in his maturation from adolescence (genuinely think he has Peter Pan syndrome) which can be caused by childhood trauma, I really wonder if it is both.
Regarding the knitting thing, I’ll take your word that he once said something to that nature (I never saw that one, so IDK) but just a few months ago he went on a deep dive into textiles and did interviews with subject matter experts about their deep importance to history, technology, and modern life. I thought it was very cool and insightful.
It sounds to me like he made a mistake, assumed he knew more than he did, got and (more importantly) was receptive to the critical feedback from his audience, and decided to dedicate time to correcting his misunderstanding. I’m inclined to give grace to someone for that.
Again, I didn’t see the comments on HRT either, and I don’t much about know the specific studies regarding health outcomes with different regimens. I will take your word for it on both. I will go so far as to say that he shouldn’t speak on specifics regarding health that he is only passingly familiar with, and that is on him. But, I don’t think that what you described was, in any way, critical of trans people. And a mistaken opinion based on limited knowledge in an area you do not claim to be an expert in is not really all that unforgivable, especially when you voluntarily take that misinformation down to prevent further spread once you’ve been corrected. Plenty of people have plenty of opinions about things they don’t fully understand, and you don’t always know what you don’t know. From what I have seen of him, I would hope that he later highlighted his mistake and corrected it, along with removing the video. I don’t know that he did, but I have seen him do similar before. I really can’t expect that much else from a YouTuber.
My criticism is not about who he is. But the general social conditions, like race, gender and orientation privileges that allow him to speak with authority without being put into question by the vast majority since his status is socially determined to be the default.
I don’t think his cis het white male status is what gives him an air of authority on the matter. For one thing, not that it matters, but he has made clear that he is not hetero, but bi, even though he is married to a woman. But regardless, if his authority comes from anywhere, it is that he has spent decades in various forms of science education, provides these resources for free as a non-profit, and loves to do and share research into a wide variety of topics, and do interviews with experts in niche fields to spread knowledge. He has experience and proven dedication to science education. There is nothing about that that has to do with his race, orientation, sex, or gender identity. In fact, the science education channel he created and co-hosts, Scishow, also has several other hosts that are of various races, genders, orientations, etc. He is using his privilege to platform other groups in the science space, actively pushing against the default status you are concerned about.
Again, you are absolutely free to feel however you feel about him, and criticize his ideas, his mistakes, the risky overconfidence you perceive, etc. I agree wholeheartedly that speaking on health issues regarding trans health in particular without a firm expertise or expert source at minimum is a bad idea, and it is potentially grossly negligent to give health advice in that or any area you do not fully understand when you have the kind of platform and perceived authority he does. But I do think that he is of good character, does actively try to help, and willingly admits and corrects his mistakes to the best of his abilities. And so I really can’t agree that he is overall a bad guy or source of science education/discourse.
It sounds like your main gripe would be that he speaks before he had certainty, and his platform thus lends credence to his words, right or wrong. That is a very fair critique. We also need to remember that he is a flawed human being like the rest of us, and with a curious mind, loves to learn and share what he has learned. If you put no more stock into his words than that, as one should, then he is harmless. He should be mindful that he’s going to be treated with more trust than most and should honor that trust with as much credibility as possible. But also no one is perfect.
Him being a cis het white guy is not relevant here apart from general privileges that come with that. Unless you are saying that one with those attributes should automatically be disregarded or disqualified from public participation, or treated as lesser in matters of science, history, current events, etc. That is not a stance I can support. Equality means equality for all. That does mean that privilege should be recognized and often worked against in the name of equity. But cis het white men can still have a seat at the table of public discourse just like everyone else.
If you have a problem with Hank, the things he says or has said, that is fine. Criticism of ideas is great and necessary. Criticizing the societal privilege that he possesses for some inherent traits or his fame and money is also great and necessary too. But reducing an individual to some set of inherent traits outside of their control and criticizing those traits instead of their words and actions is just prejudice.
Edit: Also, I’m interested in what he said about trans people and HRT that you found objectionable. Same for the misogyny. Can you share a bit about that? And maybe a link to the relevant videos? I personally haven’t seen him speak about trans issues in any real detail. And everything that I have seen him say in regards to women and trans people has been generally positive. I’m curious what I may have missed.
The right against self incriminating is the 5th amendment. And he’s being charged for destroying evidence, not for not providing it. But I love the spirit.
I believe you’re right. My mistake. I misremembered that factoid.
You mean probable cause, not “probably cause”. And what you described, evading a sobriety checkpoint, gives them reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. Reasonable suspicion amounts to articulable facts of observation that reasonably lead them to suspect you may be committing/have committed/were about to commit a crime (like apparently fleeing from a police breathalyzer check). It grants them the power to detain you for a reasonable time for the purposes of investigating to confirm or assuage their suspicion.
Probable cause requires actual evidence that a specific crime has been committed, that you committed it, and that evidence is secured. It is the standard needed to A) arrest you or issue a warrant for your arrest, and B) issue a search warrant for your property if evidence connects it to the crime in question in order to gather more evidence. (Note: They may do an inventory search of your person if arrested, and an inventory search of your vehicle if towed due to your arrest. This is limited in scope. A full search requires a warrant.)
Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard than probable cause.
They’d only be doing it when they have a big suspicion of something, at least you’d hope.
Nope. They often do it entirely randomly. I’ve seen videos of them pulling over multiple vehicles to be searched simultaneously at a crossing before.
Under the border search exception, federal officers may generally conduct routine, warrantless searches of persons and items entering the United States without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity. However, stops and searches conducted in areas farther from the border may require at least heightened suspicion or probable cause of unlawful activity to withstand Fourth Amendment scrutiny.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-6-6-3/ALDE_00000239/
They can do warrantless searches. Just not within the entire 100 mile border. A fair distinction, but they definitely can at the border and ports of entry, and do so routinely.
So what position in the administration is Trump about to give him? Please tell me it is ambassador to China.