FishFace

The regulations impose additional requirements for a reason - because political advertising can be extremely dangerous. If it's a question of no political advertising or opaque, microtargeted political advertising that can't be investigated later, then it's an easy choice.

They don’t need it so I don’t provide it, that’s my primary reason and that should be enough.

It is enough. In fact, it's better than the "you should trust your SO" argument which doesn't make any sense.

I didn't say it's something you need. Read the rest of my comment.

If you just see this and, like 20 others, blindly say "you should trust your partner" then you haven't thought about it at all. If you trust your partner completely, then you trust them to use your location information responsibly, right? So trust does not have any bearing on whether to use it or not.

The issue for me is that we should try to avoid normalising behaviour which enables coercive control in relationships, even if it is practical. That means that even if you trust your partner not to spy on your every move and use the information against you, you shouldn't enable it because it makes it harder for everyone who can't trust their partner to that extent to justify not using it.

On a more practical level, controlling behaviour doesn't always manifest straight away. What's safe now may not be safe in two years, and if it does start ramping up later, it may be much, much harder to back out of agreements made today which end up impacting your safety.

With a manifesto commitment to do it, he probably will, but the question is when. In concert with other countries might be (have been) the best way to do it.

This is a very strict world view you have.

"Can be, but typically isn't" isn't strict in any sense. It's the opposite of strict, by admitting more than one possibility. We're still no closer to understanding what it is you think constitutes art, so we can't have a proper discussion about how, if at all, non-AI generated art fails to be art in that sense, and whether that's important.

Asking people what they mean by the words the say - especially when it's a word like art which is literally memed on for being the source of endless debates regarding its nature and definition - is not some kind of juvenile trap; it's a pre-requisite for having a productive conversation on the subject.

I will note, this is not an argument in favor of AI. This is just clinical “given up” disease. I think they call that cynicism.

The argument in favour is that people want to do it, so just let them get on with it. Simple.

Why can’t porn be art? You say “typically,” but what are your feelings?

Porn can be art, but typically it isn't, and typically when it is it's called "erotica" or "erotic art". There's a distinction you apparently don't want to talk about, even though you started trying to make an argument about what constituted art.

Weird that you started off saying "you must understand what art is" but now are reluctant to talk about it, even though your conception of it obviously differs greatly from mainstream definitions.

Here's what I think. I think the vast majority of visual content we interact with is pretty emotionally empty. It's product packaging, advertising, memes, yes even superhero cinematic universe shlock written to a formula. I think using AI in that area cheats no-one out of anything, and I think that people will always find an artistic outlet for their emotions if that's what they want. My partner paints as a hobby and I haven't heard them saying they're not going to bother because of AI.

Do you mean to imply that if someone took a photograph and pretended to have painted it, that this wouldn’t piss a lot of people off? I think it would.

Is your problem AI art or is it lying about art?

I might. I dunno.

Wow, you've really thought hard about this.

End-to-end ML can be much better than hybrid (or fully rules-based) systems. But there's no guarantee and you have to actually measure the difference to be sure.

For safety-critical systems, I would also not want to commit fully to an e2e system because the worse explainability means it's much harder to be confident that there is no strange failure mode that you haven't spotted but may be, or may become, unacceptable common. In that case, you would want to be able to revert to a rules-based fallaback that may once have looked worse-performing but which has turned out to be better. That means that you can't just delete and stop maintaining that rules-based code if you have any type of long-term thinking. Hmm.

Yeah, that's a good point. I guess in light of that what I would say is that, if you are going to have a state-run payment processor, you need to build in a) pluralism (enable and encourage multiple processors) and b) legal protections (legally guarantee that the payment processor has a limited remit in terms of allowing all payments unless instructed to block them by a court order) which would help mitigate or slow down anti-democratic backsliding.

That and (at least for now) it may be difficult to communicate contextual information to an LLM that a human historian or philologist may be able to take in implicitly.

Why would a campaign group have any influence over that?

It's a good point, but a payment processor run by the government would also be under pressure (from voters) to wield its power to suppress marginal content.

Imagine a US-government-run payment processor right now - it would be blocking anyone that sells anything "woke" or "DEI".