While I personally don’t like AI, I do think it is changing things. I don’t think it’s ever safe to run code without oversight from an actual programmer, but AI will likely affect the number of programmers being hired in a non negligible way.

I’m not a lawyer, and I did mention in my above comment that everyone deserves the best defense possible, but I’m pretty sure you can say “this is an injustice”, “my clients and I will appeal”, many other things which are not explicitly stating that they are innocent after literally watching one of them rape an unconscious child. This was not in court, and I understand the court of public opinion plays a part in cases, but you’ll have to forgive me if I think this is beyond what is required of a good defense attorney.

Also, I’m pretty sure there are cases (like diddy) where there is a reliance on at least some admission of guilt, and the presumption is that though you may be guilty of a crime, it’s not as severe or deserving of the punishment the prosecution is seeking.

For those also curious, these are not the property brothers who were prominently featured on HGTV.

Also, there is apparently video evidence of a rape of an unconscious underage girl and their lawyers still had the gall to say:

“We believe in our clients’ innocence,” Marc Agnifilo, a lawyer for Oren Alexander, said after the verdict. “We’re going to keep fighting.” U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni set sentencing for Aug. 6. The brothers, incarcerated since their 2024 arrests, face up to life in prison.

I believe that everyone is entitled to the best defense possible, but that is a ridiculous statement to make given the evidence.

I keep seeing this, but I think people forget what things were like before we had a formalized education system. They were not good. The modern system can certainly be improved, but it has overall improved upon itself essentially since its inception. I’m not sure if there’s some kind of golden age of US education people are imagining, or they’re just pointing out current flaws, but it really is (unfortunately or not) the best it’s ever been.

That’s really not fair to universities or the inventors. Knowledge is not inherently evil, and things that have far reaching positive impacts can be used for nefarious purposes. Modern society has perverse incentives, but individuals adding to a corpus of humanity’s knowledge are not the ones at fault.

Often times these purchases are not for the product itself, but how it can be incorporated into an existing product. I imagine if Meta makes bot accounts for people to follow/engage with, they can increase user retention and therefore ad revenue.

Yang is a grifter and no one should listen to him. Companies will happily use any excuse to fire employees and create a perception of job scarcity so that they can rehire workers who are scared and desperate and willing to take less compensation for more work.

All of that said, AI is definitely being incorporated quite heavily into a lot of products. It’s already caused issues with services we all rely on, and I hope we are able to hold companies accountable and stop patronizing them wherever possible. AI cannot do a lot of the things they are pretending it can and we are paying the price, not the companies responsible.

That behaviour would probably have the opposite effect that the people who created this rule would want.

Why are you suggesting that? Ignoring capitalistic incentives, the rule is theoretically in place to increase safety. Your decision would have no impact on safety so I’m not sure why you think it would have the opposite effect.

Uber is not society. It is making a decision it thinks will increase its revenue. It is indeed a sign of a lack of progress, but the people responsible for the progress you want are us. I’m not chiming in on the policy itself, but your comment makes it feel like you are not as committed to the progress you want made. There are men in this thread saying that they hate what women have to put up with, but understand it and want them to feel safe. That’s not what I’m getting from your comment. If I had to choose between being in a forest with you vs them I’d choose them because it seems like you’re more concerned with how you’re perceived than how other people are actually affected. I can imagine that being viewed as a predator must be uncomfortable, but women are often viewed as prey and that’s not great either. I don’t want to start playing at oppression olympics, but the fact that a post about a move to theoretically increase women’s safety has you responding about your feelings as a perceived predator makes it seem like you don’t think we as a society should do things that make women feel safer because it makes you feel like you’re being viewed as a predator.

I for the most part don’t mind being around male strangers, but the ones that give me extra room on a sidewalk or in a bar are undoubtedly the ones I’m most comfortable around and ones I’d be most likely to engage with. Not because the others make me feel unsafe but because they make me feel safe. It’s like if you invite someone into your house you can offer them food or a drink to help them feel comfortable or you can just not. You’re not necessarily a bad person for not offering something, just potentially perceived as less inviting. Society is still seen and felt as the dominion of men for a lot of people, so when men go out of their way to make space for us, it signals that they are friendly and welcoming and want us to feel safe. I think if you want to work on that divide, the best thing to do is make the women you’re around feel safe. It’s unfortunate, but it’s up to us to destigmatize our own identities. I just don’t think your comment does that.

Per RAINN, 57% of perpetrators are white. I’ll charitably imagine you’re attempting to point out perceived hypocrisy in gender vs race selection, but you’re perpetuating racist and xenophobic stereotypes. White men commit rape at more than twice the rate of black men, and naturally born citizens commit crimes at rates higher than both documented and undocumented immigrants.

If you want to make the case that it’s a discriminatory policy, you’re welcome to do so, but tying it to false perceptions of race is probably not the best move. It’s coming off as reactionary at best.

Thank you for this comment. I have backups I tested on implementation and rummaged through two years ago after a weird corruption issue, but not once since. I still get alerts about them, so I just assume they’re fine, but first thing Monday I’m gonna test them. I feel stupid for not having implemented regular checks already, but will do so now.

Yea, I mentioned in my comment that there was a confluence of issues, but the article does point out that the AI translation made the statement more definitive.

Edit to add:

As part of our post-mortem on this article’s evolution, PCWelt’s executive editor pointed out that the translation makes the article sound more definitive than its native German. He says that in the context of the article, the German word “soll” signals a rumored expectation, but the English translation used “will” instead of something more akin to “is rumored to.”

I thought this was a very well written, transparent article that took accountability as seriously as it should. I am still not sure why people are using AI for translation when translation software already existed. People mention that AI is more context aware, but I feel like when you saw those friction points in old translation software it prompted you to look further into the context, whereas AI will just make an executive decision and people feel like it must be right because it’s AI. I guess it’s possible old language software, or even a translator, would have done the same thing, but I still think people would have less inherent trust in the old software alone. I do want to point out that this AI issue was just a small part of the problem and they addressed plenty of other issues and how they plan to remedy those.

I agree to a certain extent, but also would point out that the longer something exists, the more likely it is to be exploited by capital and then just be objectively worse. A lot of the good things are still there, just pushed aside and hidden by people with ulterior motives. Plenty of queer youth still find a lot of community and comfort online when it’s absent in their lives. There is definitely something to be said about how things shape people vs how people shape things though.

I know it’s not as fancy as other IDEs, but it is still my go to for anything that I plan to perfect within a week or two. It’s also my go to for txt files. Anyone that is savvy enough for notepad++ could get a lot of use out of it in my opinion.

Yes, I saw that, I just didn’t see them say that’s what happened to them. If that’s what happened then this should be an open and shut case. Like I said initially, Google is a bad company doing bad things and this change was an objectively greedy and evil thing.

I understand mutual aid as a concept, but my local anarchist groups seem happy to just do random mutual aid. They will just stand on a corner, distribute food to anyone that comes by and say “great job team!” It feels ineffectual and the lack of planning really hobbles them. I suggested doing a more organized approach and they were all “you can do that if you want”, which I already knew I could do. I was wondering if WE should maybe be a little more organized and they just aren’t interested. They’ll do a toy drive and then just go to a random park to give them out. It feels more like a random act of kindness group than a group trying to build parallel systems of power. I understand that it may just be my local groups, but I would love to hear about other groups experiences. Is there maybe a more anarchist friendly way of organizing that I’m not privy to? I can do some reading if necessary. I’m not really an anarchist, but I believe mutual aid is important, I’d just like to see it done more purposefully. Is your mutual aid group a chapter of one I’d be familiar with? I’d be interested in trying a different group if it felt more helpful.

Google is a bad company with bad policies, but I’d love to have them explain what caused the compromise. They dispute that it was uploaded publicly to GitHub, but don’t seem to provide any information as to what happened. They also didn’t have 2fa on, which is strange to hear because AWS (they’re using Google) required 2fa on all accounts at least a year ago, regardless of permissions if memory serves. Really sorry to hear this happened to them, and the fact you can’t set a hard cap on spend makes Google the party ultimately responsible here, but I’d appreciate having more information on the actual cause.

I get where you’re coming from, but I think it’s important that ars has held this person accountable. They have a journalistic standard they are sticking to, which is that there should be no AI use, and there are repercussions for people who don’t abide. There’s not an extremely large cohort that is willing to spend more to avoid AI, but I am certainly part of it, and seeing ars hold this person accountable helps me know that I can trust and patronize them ethically. There are businesses out there unwilling to acquiesce to an AI first narrative, and I’m just worried that elements of doomerism are going to make people unwilling to believe those companies when they have every reason to believe them.