ChatGPT’s “made-up horror story” not only hallucinated events that never happened, but it also mixed “clearly identifiable personal data”—such as the actual number and gender of Holmen’s children and the name of his hometown—with the “fake information,” Noyb’s press release said.
I try to spend consciously and it’s fucking depressing. The list of companies I avoid grows and grows and grows. If it isn’t some antisocial billionaires throwing their weight around trying to get more money or change the world to better fit their vision with complete and utter disregard for normal people, it’s pressure from the millionaires to increase share value so they can try to get their turn.
The need to increase profit, or more recently increase the rate of growth (the line that shows how fast the line goes up has been discovered so now that line needs to go up), has ruined everything.
If the company isn’t completely, directly captured by these antisocial forces they are indirectly captured by the environment that is dominated by those same forces. Monopolies, anticompetitive business practices, hostile takeovers, vulture capitalists, ladder pulling, or just people strapped for cash that just buy whatever is cheaper regardless of the human cost involved.
Now everyone else is being squeezed and struggle to live a decent life or find dignity. Those responsible for this environment just use those struggling people. They’ll redirect them to squeezing each other - scams, pyramid schemes, MLMs. They’ll keep us fighting amongst ourselves - blame immigrants, minorities, DEI.
Now “AI” is continuing to get hyped and pushed even if it sucks at its job and demands insane amount of energy. It’s way cheaper than people, or at least the cost is easier to pass on to others and it might be even cheaper eventually… so everyone is investing in it.
From an American perspective, it’s just so much and I feel like things are only getting worse and fast.
There is also the corpo verified id route. In order to avoid the onslaught of AI bots and all that comes with them you’ll need to sacrifice freedom, anonymity, and privacy like a good little peasant to prove you aren’t a bot… and so will everyone else. You’ll likely be forced to deal with whatever AI bots are forced upon you while within the walls but better an enemy you know I guess?
As another IT guy here, it could also be a shitty method of analysis that he got from ChaptGPT. As an amateur coder/script writer, the kinds of code I’ve seen people use from these bots is disturbing. One of my coworkers asked me for help after trying to cobble together something from bots. There were variables declared and never used, variables that were never assigned values but that were used in expressions… it was like it attempted to do that ransom note made from magazine letters but they couldn’t spell coherently.
thrown away on a whim?!
It wasn’t thrown away on a whim, it was dismissed without prejudice. It was transformed into a gun held to the corrupt mayor’s head so that the Trump administration can extract as much value as possible from him while he still has some power.
In my opinion, it’s even more fucked up. Double corruption - corruption charges put on hold so that so the defendant can be extorted.
I would say enforcement never prevents any crime and enforcement is about punishment not prevention. So when is it worth it? What level totalitarianism an authoritarianism is worth it? How much abuse and Injustice is necessary to assuage your fears about the other? Surely you’re not going to sit here and tell me only fear of punishment is what stops you from murdering people?
What if we focused on resolving systemic issues that might provide motivation to prevent crime? What if we focused on rehabilitation instead of punishment for those that commit crimes anyway?
Sure, you can take any idea to an extreme strawman and shriek things like “authoritarianism!” but that means nothing.
The only AI company that responded to Ars’ request to comment was OpenAI, whose spokesperson confirmed that OpenAI is already working on a way to fight tarpitting.
Ah yes. It’s extremely common for one of the top companies in an industry to spitefully expend resources fighting the irrelevant efforts of…
One or two people
Please, continue to grace us with you unbiased wisdom. Clearly you’ve read the article and aren’t just trying to simp for AI or start flame wars like a petulant child.
It’s important that while we are looking for solutions for the now that we also reflect on how it could have been prevented. If this is burned into our memories, maybe next time someone that represents us gains power we’ll force them to prevent something similar from happening again in the future.
The only time precedent ever matters to conservatives is if it works in their favor.
No, before anyone says it, it is not smart to stoop to their level
While it’s a bit disappointing, I understand that one perspective is that it is a defensive move. I don’t think it is unreasonable to assume that Trump is going to abuse his power and weaponize the Justice Dept to extract everything he can, politically, from the resulting show.
I don’t know whether or not Biden would have done the exact same thing if it was a more reasonable Republican administration coming in. That would be far more telling. It might have been that Biden was making a show of it with the assumption that he’d be overseeing and influencing it all as president and if that weren’t the case he’d be abusing his authority to spare his son.
Yes, it’s frustrating because of the message it send but frankly, I don’t think it’ll cause much trouble. Everyone who’d see it as an admission of the guilt of the “Biden crime family” wasn’t going to change their mind, even if Hunter was publicly drawn and quartered by the Biden administration. Those folks would immediately move the goal post - “Yeah, whatever, but what about…” or just insist Hunter’s death was fake and it was all sham.
Why do ordinary people seem so unprotected against these shady practices
Assuming you are in the USA, it’s fundamentally because our politics is fueled by private money. The “haves” spend lots of money to make rules that protect and enrich themselves at the expense of the “have nots”. The rich get richer, and the rest of us get a larger share of the burden.
The rich then spend more of their money convincing everyone else that some minority group of their fellow “have nots” are to blame and let us fight amongst ourselves. They starve us but leave us with just enough left to lose so that the price of doing something about it is too high (quitting, losing health insurance, getting arrested at a protest, etc) for most of us to bear.
how can we change this?
Get money out of politics. Get the public to stop blaming their fellow have nots and demand change from the haves.
How does one person even start to address these issues?
Have empathy for and help your neighbors if you can, especially when they take the risks required to push for actual change. Talk to people. Organize. Support/start unions or a mutual aid organization. Go to local government meetings and make your voice heard. Run for local office.
Its easy for a small group of wealthy organizations to tilt specific elections or politics in their favor. It’s much harder them to do that in 1,000+ small communities across the nation.
Fundraisers and charities, when you have a lot money, are rarely acts of charity. They tend to be PR campaigns and power plays.
Honestly, even when the acts have good intentions, they are often quite damaging. The involvement of the wealthy in charity is very similar to their involvement in politics. Their wealth buys influence and gives them a disproportionate say that allows them to ignore and overrule the will of the people and sometimes even reality.
For example, look into the impact of Bill Gates’s “acts of charity” in the education space. He poured money into charter programs that negatively impacted public education. Later studies showed that his programs were not particularly effective.
Let’s say, hypothetically, that a very rich person is convinced by some charlatan that they found the a means to produce free energy. The wealthy person throws tons of money at the idea. How many talented people will be taken from other legit programs because the paycheck at Bullshit Energy Nonprofit is better? These rich people are successful and think they know bestr. Their money ensures they get treated like experts because money makes things happen whether or not those things are helpful.
If Democrats follow that playbook it only legitimizes it, giving a future Republican administration the green light to do it as well.
I 100% agree in spirit. However…
giving a future Republican administration the green light to do it
One of the many problems with American politics is that the Republicans do not need legitimacy or a green light. They’ll fucking do it anyway. They’ll also cry foul if they catch a whiff of a democrat thinking about doing it. Or they’ll just accuse a democrat of doing it and they’ll just use that as justification for doing it first.
They know their policies are wildly unpopular and that they won’t even be able to maintain power by illegitimate minority rule, which they have been doing for decades now.
It’s grab power now or regroup and accept that they’ve lost the culture war. They are not going to go quietly, as recent events and Project 2025 has made crystal clear.
There could have been better worlds
So… because Trump didn’t get unhinged to the point where he started a nuclear war, you aren’t worried.
How did you feel about refusing to concede in the 2020 election and creating uncertainty and doubt about the electoral process among a not insignificant minority of voters?
How about inciting an angry mob to interrupt the peaceful transfer of power on January 6th?
How did you feel about hoarding and hiding classified documents so that he could show them off to impress his friends and guests? Maybe even sell them if times are tough?
How about strong-arming the Republican party and installing his family to run it?
How do you feel about how his SCOTUS has changed the fundamentals of the US government?
The Chevron deference?
Bribery?
Presidential “immunity” for official acts?
How do you feel about the loss of the right to have an abortion?
Do you think Trump, with the powers newly granted to the office he’s again running for, will act in his second term? Where is your line?
I see. So what has happened over the last 8 years as a direct result of his election isn’t concerning to you?
now that Trump has been president once, I know what it’s like when that happens and don’t worry that much about it anymore).
That sounds disturbingly like you aren’t all that concerned about what a second Trump presidency would be like. It sounds like you think the first one wasn’t as bad as people thought it would be and the second one will similarly be better than people think. Am I misreading your words?
I agree they’ve been trying to mitigate this but as I understand it things are quite precarious regardless. It’s not always possible to mitigate a disaster you see coming even if you try your best to prepare for it.
There has been more talk of it since then - that article just was the only concrete & most reputable source I could think of at the time and I didn’t want to turn a post into a research project.
Anyway, while there is more awareness of the issue it is, more or less, the same shady greed-driven risky behavior and nonsense that happened with home mortgages except its commercial mortgages and they’ve seen it coming.
It actually kind of is The Bigger Short
Some folks have been calling this for a while. The Bigger Short
I replied to the following statement:
I countered this dismissal by quoting the article, which explains that it was more than just a coincidental name mix up.
You response is not really relevant to my response, unless you are assuming I’m arguing for one side or the other. I’m just informing someone who dismissed the article’s headline using an explanation that demonstrated that they didn’t bother to read the article.
If the owners of the technology call it artificial intelligence and hype or sell it as a potential replacement for intelligent human decision making then it should be absolutely be judged on those grounds.