Facebook really wants a legal monopoly on the concept of pervert glasses, don’t they?

The logic around spending this much money to advertise something that also cost you money is odd, but at least the interview with the creator is… similarly pretty unusual.

I definitely wouldn’t call myself anti-AI – I’m not a technical person, so I wouldn’t have been able to create something like this three or four years ago, before AI’s help. I think that’s really cool, as are a lot of the other things AI is empowering people to do.

Huh.

I just want people to keep thinking critically about our own relationship to these tools, and about the tenor of the cultural conversation around AI (hence the billboard)…

…especially with all the speculation of [an AI] bubble.

Jokes aside, though, I think this whole stunt is perfectly harmless, and it could be an indicator that maybe lonely people should have more opportunities to talk to lonely people. Especially outside of the context of whatever attention-draining social media apps Big Tech has to offer.

I just visited digg.com and got redirected to digg.com/tech. The article titles are

• AI
• Sabine Hossenfelder (the clickbait Eric Weinstein wannabe) and AI
• Sandisk… And AI
• AI
• AI
• AI
• Business podcast about AI
• Bug in app purchased by OpenAI

And the content appears to be AI-generated summaries of Twitter conversations. Phenomenal.

An older version of the website just redirected to digg.com/ai (“AI news, before it trends”, and the archived copy seems to have an ironically oversized Twitter logo).

Poor Digg. If they’d only come around a year or two earlier, they could’ve made bank selling NFTs.

I was going to say, we barely have open-source cellphone OSes right now, and the most functional ones exist only because a surveillance company gave away their early code in a successful bid for market dominance. Something similar would probably play out for pervert glasses.

I find it kind of funny that this is where you draw the line. First off, I don’t think calling AI a tool is particularly accurate because it’s trivially easy to control/predict the output of a tool, but you can’t control the output of an AI. You’re just losing a little more control here with their decision.

Exactly. “Guardrails” are already ill-defined, so it’s more than likely that a few companies (with lawyers) can say “we have them, China and small businesses don’t.”

OpenAI/Anthropic might as well say they’re the only companies operating with benevolent invisible wizards, and nobody else is.

They wrote they’d like to see AI executives testify “about the causes of these incidents, what failures or potential negligence at the companies led to them, and the types of regulation required to make sure they never happen again.”

"Thank you for your question, Mr. Senator. The product I manufacture is going to create an apocalypse or a second industrial revolution any day now. Just ask my sworn enemy Eliezer Yudkowsky!

“But we care about humans, and we’d be happy to set up vague, non-deterministic guardrails that only companies with my level of annualized revenue can afford.”

I don’t know if you saw this post yet, but at least somebody is maintaining a Facebook filter list. Hopefully that means you can keep using uBO in peace, provided the right lists are enabled.

The corpos like it more that way. After a little lobbying, a popular politician tells the world that their product is actually Great and Mighty, the media repeats it uncritically, and the public believes it.

Doesn’t matter if the product isn’t Great and Mighty, the stock goes up.

U2 becomes iTunes’ most downloaded artist

He also imagines a world with AGI while trying to sell the worst chatbot on the market.

That’s the trick. He wants people to believe fiction and reality are the same, so they keep giving him money and attention.

There is no reason to assume AI is either desirable or sustainable like Zuck does.

I don’t think the vast majority of people here get this. If Facebook’s anti-adblock measure is effective enough to be worthy of replicating, it’ll just get replicated.

The “tax” just transfers shares of the for-profit companies into a State organization.

So CEOs like Elon Musk will keep using them as CSAM generators, while the State is incentivized to keep them profitable… Even though we have no reason to assume they’ll ever turn a profit.

AI should not be treated as “too big inevitable to fail” and yet here Bernie is.

The president nominates THE SENATE CONFIRMS(because you glossed over that part) this is literally the standard practice.

Re-read my previous comment. I mentioned the Republican-controlled Senate explicitly. Did you need it to be in bold too or what?

I’m not sure what’s up with the hostility and calling everybody here dumb, but you’re not talking about the same thing as I am.

He wants AI stock wealth to be given back to the people.

It won’t be.

The stock will be taken by the government, and run by people chosen by Donald Trump and the majority-Republican Senate.

The Independent Commission would consist of seven members nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate

Considering AI is unprofitable, and considering the rampancy of corruption in the Trump administration, this is an extremely naive position to hold at best, and an actively harmful one at worst.

Bernie Sanders sadly didn’t get the message and wants the American government to own 50% of the stock of major AI companies instead, which means the government would have an even bigger reason to invest more in them.

Why does Binance get to enjoy all the legal benefits of being a corporation, and all the benefits of trading cryptocurrency, and none of the downsides of either?

Important distinction, thank you. From the article:

the group of affected authors can expect to receive about $19m (£14m).

I’m not sure if it’s clickbait or just the most recognizable thing in their catalog. I’ve heard of A Court of Thorns and Roses, never heard of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell at all, but Harry Potter is a household name.

On the other hand, the money is being taken from a company that helped bomb Iranian schoolchildren , and has a CEO who desperately wants to do it some more.

The recipient doesn’t really deserve the payout here, but the people who do will never be rich enough to get the lawyers to receive it. You’ve got to have (tons of) money to make money…

Edit : It turns out the publisher will be giving the proceeds of the lawsuit to the authors, which number in the thousands.