The fact that you’re trying to drag completely irrelevant shit into it about paedophilia, shows how staggeringly weak the pro-OpenAI argument is.

Shit. Forgot where I was. My post is sucking Elon’s dick and excusing Tesla for fuck ups.

Unironically yes, you’re all over this story flooding the zone with shit to try discrediting the whole thing, despite having nothing of substance to offer beyond asserting that nobody knows anything except for you and Elon.

You’ve posted this in multiple places without explaining yourself, and your subsequent follow-ups have also just been questioning the person’s credentials and offering nothing of your own. You’re a classic example of the bullshit asymmetry principle, flooding the thread with low effort trolling.

They’re not being expected to design a whole new car from scratch though, are they.

I read the article, and I’m calling bullshit on the excuses they’re putting up. The fact that they usually prefer a five year cycle, does not mean that it’s difficult to change the handles on the doors in two years if you need to.

I’m calling corpo lobbied bullshit. 2 years is enough time to put a normal door handle on your car.

Again you’re just factually wrong. The website operator has a wide degree of control over what can appear on their site in the admin panel. They even have the choice of which platform to go with if they don’t. And even if they didn’t, it’s still an argument that relies on “everyone does it ergo it must be ok”, which wouldn’t stand on its own terms either.

To repeat, I’m not supporting the Online Safety Act, but this whole argument seems to rely on the fictional notion that innocent website operators don’t know where their data packets are being sent, which hasn’t been true since the 1990s.

By your logic, any website with advertising is operating in EVERY country worldwide.

No. Every ad platform out there has the advertiser choose what region to advertise in. Nobody wants to pay to advertise in countries where they don’t sell their products. Likewise websites have the option not to serve countries they don’t want to comply with the laws of, and indeed many do this exact thing.

The whole argument being presented is being intentionally naive about both the technology and the law. Y’all are arguing based on how you WANT the world to be rather than how it is.

If 4chan make revenue by advertising UK goods and services to UK users, then they are very much operating in the UK. It’s not reasonable to make the argument that you should be able to do business with a country and opt out of its laws simply by running the physical servers abroad. We don’t tolerate it for wire fraud or CSAM, but nobody’s rushing out to defend the sovereign rights of child abusers and scammers.

I don’t agree with the Online Safety Act on its own terms, but this is a dud of an argument.

I’m not a fan, but he doesn’t strike me as someone who takes himself seriously enough for this to be the self-own that the headline seems to imply.

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

That’s not actually the case for most companies though. The only time you’d need a full time lawyer on it is if the thing you want to do with AI is horrifically unethical, in which case fuck your little startup.

It’s easy to comply with regulations if you’re already behaving responsibly.

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.

I guess? Someone also said “rhetoric”, and although it counts as both of these, I’m specifically thinking about these kinds of statements you get in press releases that obnoxiously try to paint the world the way that the company needs it to be in order to justify what they’re doing.

Things like “Customers don’t like regulations that stop us giving them the best service”, “Our users are clear that they want the freedom to choose what subscription models work for them”, you know? Those kind of weaselly shit on my pie and tell me it’s a blueberry statements, where they dishonestly attempt to pose as the good guys wanting to do best for the world. They clearly must know that nobody actually falls for it, but they say it anyway because they need it to be out there in order for their paid-off politicians and useful idiots to have something to support deregulation.

Advertising…helps customers discover new content and products they may be interested in.

Someone needs to coin a word to describe this type of infuriating corporate statement. They make astonishingly piss-weak arguments in a patronising tone, as if to insist that reality must be whatever they say it is because they’re a successful company.

It’s the kind of statement that’s not technically a lie, but still seems dishonest for them to present as though it were a sane response, almost like an attempt at gaslighting.

I think the person who wrote that response should be forced to wear it around their neck so that everyone can see what sort of person they are.

I also find it interesting how whenever I’ve expressed the above sentiment either here or on the Other Place, the up/downvote ratios seem to vary massively depending on the tech-bro quotient of the group. I’m mildly surprised to see it go entirely positive in a community called “technology”.

You can tell how competent someone is at something by how good they think AI is at that thing.

All Microsoft had to do for Windows to remain the most popular home and office OS in the world for decades to come, was to just not fucking suck.

Sorry, I’m still stuck on what the limiting aspect of it is. “Operating on hundreds of pages that each have limited reach” costs next to nothing if it’s all automated with bots.