Skip to content

Microsoft axe another 9000 in continued AI push

Technology
24 20 162
  • Meta Takes Hard Line Against Europe's AI Rules

    Technology technology
    19
    1
    92 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    146 Aufrufe
    F
    One part of this is jurisdiction. I'm being very simplistic here and only have a vague sense of the picture, really (my own prejudice - I find just about everything about meta abhorrent) They are based in a country that's solely oritentated towards liberty - not fairness or common sense. There are other parts, of course, like lobbying, tax breaks and so on, but a big part is because they're not based in the EU.
  • 164 Stimmen
    31 Beiträge
    168 Aufrufe
    M
    I have like a dozen Gmail accounts, and I know plenty of others who do too. Before I owned my own domain, I used the different accounts for different things.
  • 29% of adults couldn't go hour without internet - survey

    Technology technology
    18
    1
    68 Stimmen
    18 Beiträge
    88 Aufrufe
    saltsong@startrek.websiteS
    Because we don't want them doing surge pricing.
  • Mergulhe em Aventuras Digitais com a MerwomanPG

    Technology technology
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 121 Stimmen
    23 Beiträge
    123 Aufrufe
    A
    It's one of those things where periodically someone gets sanctioned and a few others get scared and stop doing it (or tone it down) for a while. I guess SHEIN are either overdoing it or they crossed the popularity threshold where companies become more scrutinized
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    420 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 105 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    18 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 360 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    122 Aufrufe
    F
    If only they didn’t fake it to get their desired result, then maybe it could have been useful. I agree that LiDAR and other technologies should be used in conjunction with regular cameras. I don’t know why anyone would be against that unless they have vested interests. For various reasons though I understand that it isn’t always possible - price being a big one.