Looks like you had your transgression thoroughly explained to you.

Honestly, I don’t need to see reasons. Or rather, I already see the reasons. What I don’t see any reason for is staying unless you’re a fascist.

Every time someone posts something on that place or a link to there, I just assume they are the sort of person who is fine being in the room with Nazis.

I saw that first sentence and the silence of my jaw not hitting the floor was deafening.

Keystroke patterns and rhythms is above and beyond, though. That’s not remotely necessary and the kind of thing that can only be used to track an individual across multiple platforms and attempts at anonymity. I don’t know how effective it is at that, but that is the sole purpose unless maybe they are training a better autocorrect tool and think that would be helpful.

At any rate, that’s the point where I noped out. They are completely honest about putting every effort into identifying users and associating them with real identity. Such a system would be quite capable of de-anonymizing marketing profiles, health data, etc. by correlating vast amounts of data.

Mate, I didn’t have anything more useful to say, so I went something funny. Your last sentence did kinda come across as “these swill-drinking bastards can’t recognize good coffee anyway,” but I apologize if I stressed you out or hit a nerve. If it seems I put no effort into reading/replying to your comment, it’s because I didn’t. Have a good day, bud.

So you’re saying instant is good when you’re comparing it to fecal soup? Not really selling it, here.

Yeah, but it’s more likely she’ll follow her own self interest over any sense of decency. Still no, but not as ridiculous of a no.

I hope she is. I hope the next fucking time she supports the fascist in chief doing evil shit, maybe she thinks about how fucking miserable she’s going to be answering questions about it day in and day out and refuses out of sheer fucking laziness since she won’t do it out of decency.

I’m straight and I’ve been accused of being gay before for being an intellectual and compassionate and not demonstrating an affinity for sports and similar competing with other men. I’ve also been accused of being trans before because of an affinity for playing female characters in tabletop (I like diverse groups so I often play female or black characters because many other folks won’t) and computer RPGs (I prefer to stare at a woman’s ass all day over a man’s and I tend to enjoy the voice acting better).

So I guess don’t do anything I do.

I agree that was douchy of them to say, but at the end of the day the election is historically about the economy. Race didn’t matter. Stance on Israel/Gaza didn’t matter. Primary wouldn’t have mattered. Any dem was going to lose because the people felt they were doing worse under Biden, despite apparently handling an economic crisis masterfully. (I would argue it was largely luck, but it doesn’t matter.)

To believe any of the sideshow issues mattered is to ignore history. It’s sad, but looks true to a high degree.

Why would you keep it from saying that when in certain contexts that’s perfectly acceptable? I explained exactly that point in another post.

This is sort of a tangent in this case because what the AI said was very oblique—exactly the sort of thing it would be impossible to guard against. It said something like “come home to me,” which would be patently ridiculous to censor against, and impossible to anticipate that this would be the reaction to that phrase.

Those rails are full of holes and always will be because patching them is deterministic. It’s just as impossible to write exact rules about what an AI can and can’t say as it is to dictate what people can say. It will always, always, always be possible for an AI to say something malicious no matter how well intentioned the person running it is or how much effort they put in.

So what should be the legally mandated amount of effort? Is it measured in dollars? Lines of code? Because you won’t ever fix the problem, so the question is what is the required amount before it’s on the user to just use their own fucking brain ?

I suppose that argument has to be made, but it seems shaky to me. “Kill yourself” shouldn’t be free speech.

That being said, any AI is a non-deterministic text generator. Folks should agree and understand that no one can be held responsible for what the AI outputs. Particularly with fiction bots, you can’t censor suicide without also making it something that can’t happen within a shared and understood story context.

For example you couldn’t write a story where an antagonist suggests the MC kill themself as a sort of catharsis for coping with that situation in real life. The AI can’t work out the difference between that and a real conversation because it only looks at a few thousand characters. And in this specific case, I think the AI should presume everything is a fiction because being a fictional character is it’s raison d’être.

So I don’t like this argument, but I still don’t think the company should be held at fault. It’ll be interesting to see the outcome because I know not everyone is in agreement here.