Skip to content

Duolingo CEO tries to walk back AI-first comments, fails

Technology
134 90 546
  • 60 Stimmen
    7 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    R
    They are bad, and we are all good, did I understand everything correctly?
  • 122 Stimmen
    3 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    captainastronaut@seattlelunarsociety.orgC
    Anytime I get one as an Uber I try to play stupid like I can’t figure out the door handles. Slam the doors, pull the emergency door release (if there is one), push against the motorized door close mechanism. Ask if there’s a shade for the glass roof. Anything to remind the driver that it’s not a good car, especially as a taxi.
  • How to turn off Gemini on Android — and why you should

    Technology technology
    47
    1
    403 Stimmen
    47 Beiträge
    341 Aufrufe
    K
    Fair enough. Unfortunately, that only covers around 5% of Android users in the US.
  • Exclusive: OpenAI to release web browser in challenge to Google Chrome

    Technology technology
    28
    54 Stimmen
    28 Beiträge
    199 Aufrufe
    T
    Also Servo is now under the Linux Foundation. Both this and Ladybird are very exciting.
  • Apple sued by shareholders for allegedly overstating AI progress

    Technology technology
    75
    500 Stimmen
    75 Beiträge
    415 Aufrufe
    finishingdutch@lemmy.worldF
    For this comment, I want to be absolutely clear that I do not give a shit about AI, and that it in no way factored into my decision to buy this iPhone 16 Pro Max. With that disclaimer out of the way: I very much look forward to a class action lawsuit. Apple advertised specific features as coming ‘very soon’ and gave short timeframes when asked directly. And they basically did not deliver on those advertising promises. Basically, I think there’s a good case to be made here that Apple knowingly engaged in false advertising in order to sell a phone that otherwise would not have sold as well. Those promised AI features WERE a deciding factor for a lot of people to upgrade to an iPhone 16. So, I’ll be looking forward to some form of compensation. It’s the principle of it.
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    225 Aufrufe
    G
    Obviously the law must be simple enough to follow so that for Jim’s furniture shop is not a problem nor a too high cost to respect it, but it must be clear that if you break it you can cease to exist as company. I think this may be the root of our disagreement, I do not believe that there is any law making body today that is capable of an elegantly simple law. I could be too naive, but I think it is possible. We also definitely have a difference on opinion when it comes to the severity of the infraction, in my mind, while privacy is important, it should not have the same level of punishments associated with it when compared to something on the level of poisoning water ways; I think that a privacy law should hurt but be able to be learned from while in the poison case it should result in the bankruptcy of a company. The severity is directly proportional to the number of people affected. If you violate the privacy of 200 million people is the same that you poison the water of 10 people. And while with the poisoning scenario it could be better to jail the responsible people (for a very, very long time) and let the company survive to clean the water, once your privacy is violated there is no way back, a company could not fix it. The issue we find ourselves with today is that the aggregate of all privacy breaches makes it harmful to the people, but with a sizeable enough fine, I find it hard to believe that there would be major or lasting damage. So how much money your privacy it's worth ? 6 For this reason I don’t think it is wise to write laws that will bankrupt a company off of one infraction which was not directly or indirectly harmful to the physical well being of the people: and I am using indirectly a little bit more strict than I would like to since as I said before, the aggregate of all the information is harmful. The point is that the goal is not to bankrupt companies but to have them behave right. The penalty associated to every law IS the tool that make you respect the law. And it must be so high that you don't want to break the law. I would have to look into the laws in question, but on a surface level I think that any company should be subjected to the same baseline privacy laws, so if there isn’t anything screwy within the law that apple, Google, and Facebook are ignoring, I think it should apply to them. Trust me on this one, direct experience payment processors have a lot more rules to follow to be able to work. I do not want jail time for the CEO by default but he need to know that he will pay personally if the company break the law, it is the only way to make him run the company being sure that it follow the laws. For some reason I don’t have my usual cynicism when it comes to this issue. I think that the magnitude of loses that vested interests have in these companies would make it so that companies would police themselves for fear of losing profits. That being said I wouldn’t be opposed to some form of personal accountability on corporate leadership, but I fear that they will just end up finding a way to create a scapegoat everytime. It is not cynicism. I simply think that a huge fine to a single person (the CEO for example) is useless since it too easy to avoid and if it really huge realistically it would be never paid anyway so nothing usefull since the net worth of this kind of people is only on the paper. So if you slap a 100 billion file to Musk he will never pay because he has not the money to pay even if technically he is worth way more than that. Jail time instead is something that even Musk can experience. In general I like laws that are as objective as possible, I think that a privacy law should be written so that it is very objectively overbearing, but that has a smaller fine associated with it. This way the law is very clear on right and wrong, while also giving the businesses time and incentive to change their practices without having to sink large amount of expenses into lawyers to review every minute detail, which is the logical conclusion of the one infraction bankrupt system that you seem to be supporting. Then you write a law that explicitally state what you can do and what is not allowed is forbidden by default.
  • 75 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    43 Aufrufe
    L
    Police: Arrest you for having an open beer in public Judge: sentences you to prison The PIC:
  • 1 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    75 Aufrufe
    T
    ...is this some sort of joke my Nordic brain can't understand? I need to go hug a councilman.