CovertOperative

I’m not an expert at corpo terminology either, so maybe “middle management” is wrong, but I’m certain “senior director” is still not part of the executive ranks.

Wikipedia has an overview about all of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EBay_stalking_scandal

I don’t think the employees/managers were just fall guys, but I don’t believe for a second the execs knew nothing about what they did. And I find it suspicious that the employees seemingly plead guilty without a lawyer, as the article you’re quoting says.

No, it doesn’t. The convicted people were middle management, the execs involved just have to pay some money now. Notably as a settlement and not a verdict.

What’s the beef between beehaw and lemmy.world?

Federal prosecutors have said the harassment included anonymous deliveries of items like live cockroaches and spiders, a funeral wreath, and a bloody pig face mask to the couple’s home. The employees also sent pornographic magazines with the husband’s name on them to a neighbor’s home and planned to break into the couple’s garage to install a GPS device on their car.

Holy shit.

Another company to the “never again” list. I’m running out of online places to buy from 🥲.

Sorry, the “meme ecosystem”? What?

And let’s assume the opposite side wins: Then there would be a ruling that if someone does not market their copyright and does not contest other people using it non-commercially, they also have to allow third others to use it commercially.

Which sounds to me like effectively abolishing the copyright system for anyone who can’t afford paying lawyers to hunt down every little infringement, only leaving it up for wealthy corporations.

…so that’s probably exactly how it’s going to go, isn’t it.

(Also, AI or not is really irrelevant for this case.)

There should be a law that if more than x% of the workforce is laid off, the entire C-suite has to go too.

Never heard of this. I have difficulty imagining where these Bluetooth mesh networks exist where they can cover more than a small neighborhood.

deleted by creator

Is this a glitch in my app or how does this comment have a negative amount of downvotes?

I mean, it is a good quote.

There’s no way this will become common. Non-visually impaired people don’t want to read like that either.

Fair points. Thanks for your insight.

AI writing has a high consistency in form and no consistency in conviction. The way to recognize AI writing is to question the will behind the writing, because AI has none save for answering a prompt.

Your business websites are a great example. You may have wanted them to be neutrally informative, instead they schizophrenically gush about contradictory digital philosophy standpoints without connecting to a big picture. There is no thinking mind behind it, just an answering machine.

There are no points of yours to refute, because you did not make any, and AI cannot make any.

I’m well aware that CEOs are pushing the exact opposite of responsible AI use. But that doesn’t mean it is fully impossible to use the tool responsibly, which is also substantiated in your linked article:

A small subset of participants though – less than 10% – worked differently and used AI as a tool to gather data that they then analysed themselves. These individuals made more accurate predictions than others participants and showed stronger brain activation too.

Ming suggests that ultimately, the goal could be a form of “hybrid intelligence” where humans and machines “do the hard stuff” together. By this she means we need to think first and use tools to challenge us later, rather than simply letting them answer questions for us. Kosmyna agrees and suggests learning subjects without AI tools first to build a foundation and then think about using LLMs.

It’s like dynamite. It can cause a lot of harm, but also make reasonable things like mining and demolition a lot easier. The difference is Alfred Nobel was smart enough not to distribute free samples on every street corner.

I do actually think AI can be very helpful in the medical field, for research in diagnostics or quickly writing reports, if responsibly done by professionals who can verify the output and with omission of patient identity.

What happened here according to the article is that they had rules on how to use AI responsibly, and they broke them all for quicker profit and tried to hide their failures.

And it’s the job of lawmakers to rein in the harmfulness of AI, not of open-source software developers.

And even if it isn’t open source, expecting companies to be the moral police without actual jurisdiction involved has already led to censorship, like Steam purging a bunch of games because of pressure from Visa and MasterCard. This isn’t something to be encouraged, even when it’s for things we don’t like, until it’s actually legally clear how AI is harmful and not “dubious”.

Not that this mail is about users anyway, but about contributors. I didn’t get from this if Linus wants to push AI use for Linux contributors or not, but I doubt he does. But blocking people from using it by their own decision would be a bad move, as long as the output is reviewed and works.

They want to verify apps from other stores too, starting with six other stores in select countries on Sept 30 and globally for all apps in 2027.

Perhaps one can hope that the courts have to say something about that too.

This appears to go quite a bit beyond scraping data.

Just as having a drinking age never stopped those under it from drinking.

Yes it absolutely does.

Author: Michael Lydick. I’m guessing his middle name is Claude.

How do you inflict a mass casualty with encyclopedias and electric motors?