Well in that case, you have to give the bus drivers rigorous training to reflect the cell phone policy. The bus driver absolutely should not have done that to your kid. That is not acceptable at all. However, that driver probably only did that because they knew your kid had a phone. If they instead knew that no kids in the school are allowed to have phones, they probably would never do something like that. It’s a giant legal liability for the bussing company.

There’s a big difference between, “I know my product will statistically increase the chance of early death across the population” and “I believe there is a very real chance my product will kill everyone.”

All sorts of things increase risk. But child endangerment and similar laws are meant for very immediate and direct threats. OpenAI is building machines that they themselves believe could kill everyone. I see that as very similar to the idea of having fentanyl in the same house as young children. The fentanyl isn’t a danger because it will increase the chance of the kids getting lung cancer in their sixties. The fentanyl is a danger because one dose of it could kill a kid instantly. The law addresses immediate threats, not statistical increases in mortality observable across the population.

I don’t just think AI should be regulated, I think everyone at the hyperscaler companies should be criminally indicted. Every employee at OpenAI and Anthropic working on AI development should be indicted on 8 million counts of child endangerment.

The relevant statute is California 273a.

It is a crime in the state of California to allow a child to be placed in a position where great harm could come to them. For example, people have been indicted under this statute because they had drugs in the same house as young children. Even if no children are actually hurt, simply putting them in a situation where harm is likely is the crime.

It would normally be quite difficult to prove that the actions of OpenAI and others are endangering children. But the very words of these companies would be the first exhibit of the prosecution. They’ve openly confessed to their crimes! These very same companies and their leaders have repeatedly said that they’re building machines that they themselves believe have a reasonable chance of destroying humanity. And the children of California are a subset of humanity.

Whether their claims are realistic or not, I cannot say. But I simply cannot believe that it is legal to build a machine that you yourself believe could destroy the world. We’re so glazed over by the novelty of AI that we forget to treat it like any other threat. In most places it is a crime to perform some action that you believe has a realistic chance of hurting people, even if you have no intention or desire to hurt people.

Well, according to OpenAI, the machines they are building represent a very real risk to the life and safety of every child in the State of California. I see no reason that they shouldn’t be charged with millions of counts of child endangerment. According to their own words, they are literally putting the lives of children at risk. That is a crime. That is not legal. And we should stop pretending it is.

There is something inherently evil about a technology that encourages you to turn over your voice to a soulless machine. Let the machine speak for you.

Only perverts buy pervert glasses.

I hate it. I recently went through a formal diagnosis process with a psychiatrist. And he used AI transcription. It was clear from the notes that it was mostly surface-level details. The notes included things I mentioned, but lacked depth and synthesis. The point of requiring doctors to write down notes is not just for record-keeping. The synthesis step is essential. And you completely lose that with an AI transcriber. Instead of summarizing with a clinical synthesis in mind, it just blindly copies down surface-level details. You end up with a long and detailed but extremely vapid session record.

I think the bigger concern is someone uploading CP to it and then maybe having your house raided by the cops. Even if you completely separate your personal files from the lemmy server, the police are just going to seize every computer in the house. And the fact will remain that they found CP on your computer. The burden of proof then falls on you to prove that it wasn’t you who put it there.

We don’t live perverts and their glasses.

I don’t like this “smart glasses are evil” sentiment.

That’s probably because you’re almost certainly not the type of person who will be victimized by pervert glasses.

Lemmy unfortunately does have a chronic sexism problem.

Yeah you can run it yourself, of there are some public instances that seem to work well enough. I imagine it’s going to be a long term cat-and-mouse game between reddit and the reddit front ends. Reddit will figure out a way to break them, then the devs will find a workaround. Rince and repeat.

If anyone knows of a similar tool to access Facebook marketplace, I would be very interested.

I haven’t participated in reddit in quite awhile. But I still lurk on some niche communities, and often the site is the best result from search results. For those like me, I recommend redlib. It’s a reddit front-end that lets you browse reddit without the abusive behavior. It won’t allow you to post or comment, but you can still browse.

Reddit lost access to my comment contributions when their AI banned me for stupid reasons. They lost what ad revenue they could get from me when they blocked old reddit.

The harder you squeeze, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

Yeah from the site it seems they’re using a seasonal model.

Bioluminescent plants exist as a commercial product. You can order them right now. I ordered some of these myself. (Though I’m terrible with plants. I didn’t water them enough, and they died.)

But this isn’t vaporware. You can actually order them, and I have. What is vaporware however is the idea of using these as streetlights. With the petunias I had, if you took them into a dark room and let your eyes adjust, you could see a faint blue glow off of some regions of the petunia’s petals.

But these are true bioluminescent plants. It took adding multiple genetic alterations to get the petunias to carry their bioluminescence from generation to generation, but this has been done.

So you teach something different from the mainstream - cool. But don’t be surprised when students or AI cite others or take an alternative position.

Not every class is debate. Plenty of courses are simply taught by an expert in their field, and students are graded on how well they learn from that professor’s instruction. Is it a perfect system? No. But that’s why we have experts. Some classes exist to simply establish a baseline of knowledge among the students. Such classes cannot be continuously derailed by engaging in rigorous debate about topics that experts in the field consider unambiguous and long-settled. Students are free to form their own opinions and whatever conclusions they want, but they need to demonstrate that they have at least learned the material as taught. You can believe the Universe is 6000 years old if you want. You cannot expect your astronomy professor to spend half the class debating with you about it.

A creationist student doesn’t have to believe in evolution to get an A in an evolutionary biology class. But they do have to demonstrate mastery or at least competence in the principles of evolutionary biology as taught by their professor. If they want to view the whole course as “a silly exercise in memorizing the lies of evolutionists,” well they’re free to do so. It’s a free country. Believe whatever you want. But that doesn’t mean they can just write, “God did it” to every answer on the final and still receive a passing grade.

You’re free to believe or reject anything a teacher or professor teaches you. That doesn’t mean you get out of learning the lesson entirely.

If money is a form of speech, so are bullets.