Not exactly. Princeton NJ and the surrounding areas are quite wealthy. The wealthy/elites have decided they don’t want their places polluted or to subsidize the costs of these data centers. It certainly wasn’t Newark and Camden that fought and won this.

While I don’t agree that AI alone caused anything (because there had to be some instability there for the words of the AI to manipulate, I can absolutely agree that use of the AI is a very apparent contributing factor in the cause.

With suicide you need some very specific circumstances.

1. Opportunity. A time and place where the person can’t or won’t be stopped from the attempt.
2. A feeling of pain or helplessness that eclipses that person’s ability to deal with or find and outlet for.
3. Means/mode. A bus, a rope and anchor point, a weapon.
4. Intent.

I think the last one is where things get a bit murky from a legal standpoint.

Barring accidental suicide, what can legally be considered as responsible for causing suicide is limited. If you encourage a suicidal person to kill themselves, you as the other person had intent to harm, even if you didn’t mean for them to actually follow through, or believe that they would.

My fear is that these legal battles won’t result in the AI being held accountable because they’re not able to have intent.

My bigger fear is that the companies who are responsible are not going to be held responsible for the same reason a fun manufacturer isn’t when someone sticks the barrel in their mouth and pulls the trigger. The argument that it’s a “tool” that’s been “misused” is gonna be thrown around a lot.

I wish I could believe we’d get more stringent regulations out of such lawsuits. But I just don’t have that kind of hope.

Cyberpunk platformer “Replaced”. . .

Or anyone he could use. That’s the thing about espionage. You don’t have to be in on it to benefit the people taking advantage of you.

Saying Generative AI lies is attributing the ability to reason to it. That’s not what it’s doing. It can’t think. It doesn’t “understand”.

So at best it can fabricate information by choosing the statistically best word that comes next based on its training set. That’s why there is a distinction between Generative AI hallucinations and actual lying. Humans lie. They tell untruths because they have a motive to. The Generative AI can’t have a motive.

You can also do this via the web portal if you happen to have wifi access. Just in case someone needed that information.

They may have done, but if you’re referring to the kidnapped woman who’s footage was pulled from the backend after they said she didn’t have a subscription, she had a Google Nest Camera.

I wouldn’t doubt that Amazon does this too but Google is just as bad if not worse.

My hope is they did this after they evacuated. But honestly could go either way.

I always wondered if the shape and size of your ears and nose etc change the way you register smells and hear sounds. Like your hearing isn’t the same as the person next to you etc.

Sort of like how different radar arrays are shaped different and pick up different frequencies differently etc.

I didn’t realize until I read your comment that the AI was integrated into Slack and told this person that they didn’t need to evacuate without them specifically asking the AI for advice.

On the other hand, this does show that anything typed into that slack channel is treated like a query. Which is also terrifyingly stupid.

Ok. So explain where the investment is. What does “eating the loss” do for them in the long term? How do they recoup that loss? Loss leaders (the Costco hotdog, PlayStation consoles etc) are used by businesses as a way to get people to buy into their other products that do make healthy profits. Costco’s hotdog gets people in the door, and those people buy other stuff because “while we’re here”. There’s a psychology to that strategy.

Sony uses sales of the PlayStation consoles to get people locked into their platform where they spend money on games, and skins, and micro transactions etc. People used the PlayStation to play Blu-ray (also a Sony property), and DVDs, and stream content like movies, and music. This nets them healthy profits while selling the hardware at or below cost.

Nintendo is said to do the same thing with the Switch/Switch 2. So there’s a cost to benefit ratio equation going on in each case.

What is the cost to benefit equation for Valve selling the Steam Deck at a loss? Their e-shop doesn’t depend on the hardware to sell games. They aren’t locking people into Steam in a way that’s meaningful because other hardware exists with the same or better ability to play all the same games. The Steam e-shop doesn’t require you to only play games on the Steam Deck.

So that’s where you lose me.

No. They are pointing out that Google is trying to demonize installing software outside their app store. But that’s exactly what you’re doing when you download an os update. Installing software outside the app store.

I think this may depend on the instance you’re on. The “trans” spam bot hit up my sister’s account but she’s on fedia/mbin. I haven’t noticed the other abuses per se to be like. Rampant or anything.

But I also don’t check DM’s.

Discord just had a breach of that ID data. Discord is going to lose a lot of users this way.

Military industrial complex says “what”.

I know of a guy who had his driver’s license permanently revoked because he racked up so many DUI’s. He lived in rural Indiana, and bought a moped because they didn’t require a license to drive. Obviously he did not stop driving drunk.

But also, the moped did in fact make noise.

There’s an equally valid chance they are not and will not be my “ally” at any point.

I say that because having been burned by the AI they used and regardless to whether or not they see posts like this one online, they seem more worried about the fact that this order may be valid than they do about the fact that this chatbot gave a completely hallucinated discount code at all.

A lawyer, not reddit, should be determining whether or not this person is liable for honoring the discount. I suspect they are not even on the hook for what the chatbot promised, legally speaking. And all of that assumes this is even a real thing that happened and not some random bot account on reddit making it up for clout or karma farming.

The vast majority of people aren’t even pointing and laughing. They are asking “what did you expect?”. That’s a valid question.

Falling for marketing doesn’t absolve anyone of their responsibility to do their own due diligence. A cursory search of the internet would provide thousands of hits explaining the pros and cons of such a chatbot.

If this doesn’t change this (potentially fabricated) persons mind about AI I’m not sure what will.

They are a business owner asking online if they can ignore an order after using a chatbot to communicate with and interface with customers. They failed in their duties to themselves and their customers by not vetting the tools they allowed on their website.

This is on them. I’m not celebrating that they are in a bad position. But I’m not surprised that this happened and I don’t feel empathy for someone who should have known better. If it can happen to giant airlines and big tech firms, it can happen to you, and since the small business owner doesn’t have the market cap to offset such a “mistake”, they get what they paid for.

Nobody forced them to become an entrepreneur. Nobody forced them to use a chatbot on their website. Nobody forced them to not explore the functionality of their chatbot, or not put guardrails on it.

There are plenty of websites and storefronts that have order forms that just work. There wasn’t a need to use the chatbot to take orders.

This is a costly lesson for this shop owner, but it’s a lesson they could have learned from watching others. Instead they chose to get a first hand experience of the pitfalls of using AI as a customer support medium.

Sigh. I wish Russia could be a better place to live. Jailing people for liking popular media is nuts by just about ever metric.

That’s wonderful. Would not that cost be better spent designing roads that deter speeding by design?