Skip to content

Companies That Tried to Save Money With AI Are Now Spending a Fortune Hiring People to Fix Its Mistakes

Technology
107 79 0
  • 74 Stimmen
    43 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    O
    The point is not visuals, though I know what you mean. The point is to gain the introspection and Brain chemistry changes. Micro dosing less than . 5 grams daily for short periods NOT LONGTERM, are very effective control vs SSRIs. Large mega doses are where the real changes happen. I highly recommend significant research and carrful planning if you choose this route. Safety. Trip sitters. Be safe. There has been major changes in PTSD war veterans and all sorts if mental health issues.
  • WhatsApp rolls out AI-generated summaries for private messages

    Technology technology
    26
    1
    96 Stimmen
    26 Beiträge
    80 Aufrufe
    W
    So I think, but I'm not sure, this is for group chats. Group chats are only encrypted to/from the server because the server broadcasts the message to each recipient. As the messages are unencrypted on the server, they can feed them to LLMs. This is different to Signal. On Signal it's your phone encrypting each copy of the message before sending to each recipient individually.
  • 73 Stimmen
    13 Beiträge
    42 Aufrufe
    F
    They have a tiny version that is listed as 1000 on their website, plus the simulation is FOSS
  • Trump extends TikTok ban deadline by another 90 days

    Technology technology
    6
    1
    24 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    26 Aufrufe
    N
    TikTacos
  • Iran asks its people to delete WhatsApp from their devices

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 1k Stimmen
    95 Beiträge
    16 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.
  • Data Bill: First They Came for Trans People

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    35 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 148 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    L
    Whenever these things come up you always hear "then the company won't survive!" CEO and managers make bank somehow but it doesn't matter that the workers can't live on that wage. It's always so weird how when workers actually take a pay cut, that the businesses get used to it. When the CEOs get bonuses they have to get used to that too.