Why would any investor believe this?

There are very few, if any, rare, one of a kind books that would go through this process. If one of these books were scanned for an LLM it would be done delicately in a more time consuming manner and the book would be returned.

When someone can’t answer a question a common response to change the subject. Do you have an answer to my question?

So, my question is, of all these books being scanned and then destroyed, aren’t there many more copies of these books? And BTW, knowledge isn’t permanent. It can be lost.

I do not want Flock cameras surveiling me or my car where it will inevitably become data that’s combined with a million other data points on me that might be able to determine what I’m doing, what I’m thinking, and what I might do in the future, just to be able to say we’re “safer”.

“A social internet cleansed of all content that takes advantage of others would be quite empty.” I’m not seeing a problem here.

Companies like this spend a lot of money on lawyers writing up ‘terms and conditions’ for the sole reason of shielding them from legal liability and the ability to put those protections in place just from the user selecting a checkbox. But my fear is that this case will just be another example used in the argument for age verification, and identification, online.

I’m not monolithic.

As an old person I can also say that old people don’t trust AI, or the leaders of those companies, or the current administration…

So the plaintiff had absolutely no ethical concerns about doing this?

People are just going to get sick of the Internet, if they haven’t already, and start to look at it like a necessary evil they have to use to do certain things instead of what it once was which was fun and exciting. It’s sad.

You’re right on both points.

The headline of this article should have mentioned the reason her communication was flagged was because she mentioned shooting the student or the school. When you send a text, or Snapchat message, you are stripping out a wide range of non-verbal communication including intent and seriousness. So when someone sends a message with the comment that they might shoot a student or the school there is no way to judge these things. The last thing Snapchat wants or needs is an actual school shooting occurring that can be traced back to the shooter actually mentioning their intent to do so on their platform. With no way to judge intent Snapchat had to have a way to address these concerns. If an actual shooting was prevented then Snapchat would be lauded. Otherwise it’s spun like this article implying it’s a breach of privacy.

The world with social media is much different than the world before it. It’s changed the way people think, the types of things they think about and what they consider important. It therefore changes the way they act. Combine this with the ever growing surveillance state that intentionally wants to manipulate us and is able to do so at scale and speed and we find ourselves in the giant and dangerous mess we’re in now.

I’ve read that one of the jobs most suited to takeover by AI are CEOs.

It’s almost like evolution provides us with an endless supply of fools.

Gary Marcus has a Substack everyone should read. It’s sobering.

Well that sucks.

What’s the reason for no disc? Is this another one of those ‘you buy it but you don’t really own it’ things?

Fucking Reddit.

I’m sure this current administration and some oligarchs have been, and are, doing everything in their power to know as much about each of us as possible. With AI and some Doge ‘behind the scenes’ work, a bad actor could say “I want to know everyone who shows even a slight bent to the left” so we can target them." Control and manipulation is the point. Everyone reading this is a target. And I’m sure I’ll be bumped up on their ‘people to be concerned about’ list after writing this.