You stated it very much as a set of rules that should exist. Twice.
JoBo
joined 1 year ago
Yes. The licensing approval for things like this need to include a plan for continued support if/when the company goes belly up. That would have to include the govt agreeing to pick up the slack, which would require some kind of trust fund for each individual implant to cover a lifetime of maintenance. Or, you know, nationalisation. But this is the world we live in ... so even the most basic solution won't happen because it might get in the way of some rich fuckers turning people into money.
That's a fantastically efficient way to destroy their business. There's no way to get honest reviews of employers from employees who know their identities will be exposed whether they consent or not. Doesn't even matter if the review is after leaving that job, future employers can go nosing too.
Absolute techbro-brane gold.
Where does the article say the problem started with AI? It doesn't even mention LLMs, just the explosion in grifter apps since it became easier to produce a grifter app.
If you read the article, you did not read it properly.
Have you got a source for that? The article is pretty clearly stating that previous attempts to ban it were unsuccessful. And this suggests there is no ban even though they allow small exceptions for the countries listed as having a ban.
You didn't read the article.
It's likely a browser issue. I've found a workaround, thanks.
Aye, it looks like my browser is doing something strange. Thanks.
Browser (Firefox).
I just tried opening the feed from a thread set at a good zoom level and it is better? I don't understand how or why. But I may have found some kind of solution by accident.
You start off by claiming that humans can't recognise their biases and end up by saying that there's no problem because humans can recognise their biases so well they can programme it out of AI.
Which is it?
The author does not write the headlines.