What are you talking about? Nobody is advocating making chatbots liable. That's nonsensical. They're chatbots. The question is which persons, if any, are liable for what chatbots say.
Post Loss ClarityGross.
RINO In Name OnlyRepublican In Name Only In Name Only? So...he...is a Republican?
Yeah, I think I've said this before but if you think we should be having a conversation about how looms can be useful when deployed correctly, you're really missing the point of why people are smashing them.
I don't think that's fair. I agree that Mike's a lot more bullish on AI than I am, but he's acknowledged that a lot of its uses are nonsensical and careless and that a crash is coming. I don't think that's what "all-in" looks like. As far as having sway over what the other writers say, I suppose that's true, indirectly, as he chooses the other writers and there tends to be a certain amount of overlap in their backgrounds and their views, but I really don't buy that he's enforcing a top-down policy on AI coverage. I disagree with the site's general bent on AI (and I think they skew a little more pro-tech industry, anti-government than I do in general) but I don't think there's a conspiracy here.
that some Techdirt writers either underplay as “the cost of a technological revolution”Or "silly."
Perhaps not those words exactly, but this article does seem to get a little victim-blamey with its implication that people who received bad advice from chatbots did it by intentionally bypassing guardrails.
Despite all of this, John Oliver’s answer is, of course, the government. However you may feel about tech CEOs, it is astonishing to think that the current public health powers—the same folks claiming that vaccines cause autism, antidepressants cause school shootings, and that exercise can stand in for mental health treatment, would possibly know what’s best here.Isn't the logical conclusion of this argument that we shouldn't have government regulations on vaccines or antidepressants? Like, you're arguing that we shouldn't put this particular thing under the control of HHS because it's currently run by a lunatic, but...couldn't you apply that argument to literally everything? Hell, why stop at HHS? RFK is hardly the only corrupt moron in Trump's cabinet. Carr's corrupt; I guess we shouldn't have any regulations on the broadcast spectrum. Chavez-DeRemer resigned due to misconduct; I guess we should get rid of OSHA. Kristi Noem -- ...okay, actually we should abolish DHS; I'll give you that one.
Every single person who said "it's not about race, it's about the law" is not just a racist and a liar, but also a coward. Have the fucking stones to say what you really believe.
Dude, I understand the point you think you're making. But you say "I agree with Trump on some things" often enough, you're making a different point than you think you are.
GTFO with this “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Psychiatrists can’t help people work their way through a stupid phrase the GOP has been using for the past few years because they can’t actually produce a coherent counterargument.It's been more than the past few years. They've been using it so long it started out as "Bush Derangement Syndrome".
The ironic thing is that their interference with his Colbert interview probably won him the nomination. Somebody should come up for a name for that, when somebody tries to hide something and calls attention to it instead.
People shouldn't need a decoder ring to figure out what in fuck's name you're talking about. Enough with the cute nicknames; Mad Magazine isn't hiring.
Yes, surely if we eliminated fines then there would be no other ways in which rich people would have any unjust advantages over poor people.
Good week for people named Wilson.
(And I can think of at least two Supreme Court Justices who might be sympathetic to that argument.)
Nono, the argument is that denying the sexual assault is part of the job.
Yes, and for now they're all together as a collection. You're advocating for the collection to be split up and auctioned off piecemeal to private collectors, and you believe this would be better, for reasons you haven't explained.
Sorry, this doesn't do anything to resolve my ongoing confusion about whether you're dishonest or stupid.