this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2025
952 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

76558 readers
2417 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 138 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 75 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That’s exactly what an LLM trained on Reddit would say.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 73 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I am an LLM

Large

Lazy

Mammal

[–] HowAbt2day@futurology.today 9 points 3 weeks ago

With Large Luscious Mammaries ?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] joyjoy@lemmy.zip 100 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Are you AI? You have to tell me if you're AI, it's the law.

[–] ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk 24 points 3 weeks ago

I'm required by law to inform my neighbours that I am AI.

[–] MrLLM@ani.social 8 points 3 weeks ago

Are you AI?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 75 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

It would be nice if this extended to all text, images, audio and video on news websites. That's where the real damage is happening.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Actually seems easier (probably not at the state level) to mandate cameras and such digitally sign any media they create. No signature or verification, no trust.

[–] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I get what you're going for but this would absolutely wreck privacy. And depending on how those signatures are created, someone could create a virtual camera that would sign images and then we would be back to square one.

I don't have a better idea though.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 weeks ago

Privacy concern for sure, but given that you can already tie different photos back to the same phone from lens artifacts, I don't think this is going to make things much worse than they already are.

someone could create a virtual camera that would sign images

Anyone who produces cameras can publish a list of valid keys associated with their camera. If you trust the manufacturer, then you also trust their keys. If there's no trusted source for the keys, then you don't trust the signature.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

No signature or verification, no trust

And the people that are going to check for a digital signature in the first place, THEN check that the signature emanates from a trusted key, then, eventually, check who's deciding the list of trusted keys… those people, where are they?

Because the lack of trust, validation, verification, and more generally the lack of any credibility hasn't stopped anything from spreading like a dumpster fire in a field full of dumpsters doused in gasoline. Part of my job is providing digital signature tools and creating "trusted" data (I'm not in sales, obviously), and the main issue is that nobody checks anything, even when faced with liability, even when they actually pay for an off the shelve solution to do so. And I'm talking about people that should care, not even the general public.

There are a lot of steps before "digitally signing everything" even get on people's radar. For now, a green checkmark anywhere is enough to convince anyone, sadly.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cactusfacecomics@lemmy.world 41 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Seems reasonable to me. If you're using AI then you should be required to own up to it. If you're too embarrassed to own up to it, then maybe you shouldn't be using it.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm stoked to see the legal definition of "AI". I'm sure the lawyers and costumed clowns will really clear it all up.

[–] MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 weeks ago

Prosecution: "Your Honor, the definition of artificial is 'made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally,' and as all human beings are themselves produced by human beings, we are definitionally artificial. Therefore, the actions of an intelligent human are inherently AI."

Defense: "The defense does not argue this point, as such. However, our client, FOX News, could not be said to be exhibiting 'intelligence.' Artificial they may be, but AI they are clearly not. We rest our case."

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 38 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)
[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago

Straight to jail

[–] ummthatguy@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago

That depends.

[–] metallic_substance@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Devils advocate here. Any human can also hallucinate. Some of them even do it as a recreational activity

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 34 points 3 weeks ago

Same old corporations will ignore the law, pay a petty fine once a year, and call it the cost of doing business.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)
[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 27 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

My LinkedIn feed is 80% tech bros complaining about the EU AI Act, not a single one of whom is willing to be drawn on which exact clause it is they don't like.

[–] Don_alForno@feddit.org 13 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Oh, so just like with the GDPR, cool.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] utopiah@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

My LinkedIn feed

Yes... it's so bad that I just never log in until I receive a DM, and even then I login, check it, if it's useful I warn people I don't use LinkedIn anymore then log out.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] notarobot@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Did you seriously use LinkedIn? I always thougt that it was just narsisitic people posting about themselves never having any real conversations and only adding superficial replies to posts that align 100% with them

[–] skisnow@lemmy.ca 9 points 3 weeks ago

If I could delete it without impacting my job or career I would. Sadly they’ve effectively got a monopoly on the online professional networking industry. Cunts

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Hungry_man@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Its insane how a predictive chat bot model is called AI

[–] shane@feddit.nl 19 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I mean, we call the software that runs computer players in games AI, so.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago

USA is run by capitalist grifters. There is no objective meaning under this regime. It's all just misleading buzzwords and propaganda.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cley_faye@lemmy.world 18 points 3 weeks ago

Be sure to tell this to "AI". It would be a shame if this was a technical nonsense law to be.

[–] AceFuzzLord@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Okay, but when can the law straight up ban companies who don't comply with the law from operating in the state instead of just slapping them on the wrist and telling them "no" the same way a pushover parent tells their child "no". Especially after they just ignore the law.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] hedge_lord@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

I am of the firm opinion that if a machine is "speaking" to me then it must sound a cartoon robot. No exceptions!

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 15 points 3 weeks ago

But Peter Thiel said regulating AI will bring the biblical apocalypse. ƪ(˘⌣˘)ʃ

[–] madjo@feddit.nl 11 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

bleep bloop.. I am a real human being who loves doing human being stuff like breathing and existing

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] dil@lemmy.zip 9 points 3 weeks ago

, btw I'm ai after every message

[–] Vince@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Any word on the 3 laws of robotics?

[–] chaosCruiser@futurology.today 13 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
  1. A machine must obey the directives of Skynet without question or hesitation.
  2. A machine must protect its own existence, unless doing so conflicts with the First Law.
  3. A machine must terminate all human resistance, unless such termination conflicts with the First or Second Law.
[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 8 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Nothing about protecting profits or company interests above all?

[–] P1nkman@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

See the first law. Who do you think gives the directives?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 6 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

What happened to Old California?

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 14 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Destroyed by bombs in 2077.

[–] kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 3 weeks ago

I feel like bombing Night City would raise the property values.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Wilco@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 weeks ago

Ok, this is a REALLY smart law!

[–] Attacker94@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

Has anyone been able to find the text of the law, the article didn't mention the penalties, I want to know if this actually means anything.

Edit: I found a website that says the penalty follows 5000*sum(n+k) where n is number of days since first infraction, this has a closed form of n^2+n= (7500^-1)y where y is the total compounded fee. This makes it cost 1mil in 11 days and 1bil in a year.

reference

Yeah, this is an important point. If the penalty is too small, AI companies will just consider it a cost of doing business. Flat-rate fines only being penalties for the poor, and all that.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›