McDonald's are franchises - you generally want to sue the local owner or threaten them in addition to the holding company.
That only requires someone own the ai managed McDonald's though. so long as they can't avoid responsibility by pointing to the AI I don't see why you couldn't sue them.
Anecdotes about whether people like Flock cameras are useful. Anecdotes about how one specific guy who likes Flock made an overheated analogy are not useful. The author conflating the two is a dictionary-perfect example of sensationalism.
> Anecdotes about how one specific guy who likes Flock made an overheated analogy are not useful.
You haven't been on social media the last decade, have yoh? We're no longer in times where (if we ever were) of the most eloquent, subtle, balanced argument winning over elected representatives.
Why is the revealed preference of "I don't want to have a contract with a specific notorious company" mapped to "I don't want Internet at all" here? Maybe he should have proposed banning Comcast or another notorious company.
Honestly, there are ways to advocate for better digital privacy without the need to entirely dismantle modern day life.. Arguments like this are counterproductive and are made in bad faith, suggesting that privacy is an all or nothing approach.
Comparing Flowers' total ban on all technology to "A Modest proposal" is incredibly troublesome. His argument seems to be designed to show that privacy is impossible and that government overreach is inevitable and reasonable. He's not challenging existing power structures in any way, but aims to legitimize it. "Crash out" might not be the best term, but I think it helps to emphasize how unreasonable his position is in this matter.
FWIW I agree he’s not taking a good approach, it does sound like he’s flipping the bird on the way out due to frustration with not getting his way.
I also agree that government overreach should not be inevitable and is not reasonable. But I also agree that privacy is actually already much more eroded than the average citizen realizes. For that reason, I agree there are actually better places to put ones effort than banning LPRs. For instance, tech companies like those I mentioned should face stricter regulations than they do today. Now, Flock would be party to that itself as it is collecting highly sensitive data. But operating in a regulated environment is not the same as being prohibited from operating at all.
Generally speaking, I think machines that cause death and destruction and provide easy escape from crime scenes should be monitored while operating in public domains, where externalities of bad behavior can be foisted upon innocent parties. For the same reason, I also think speed and red light cameras should be a thing. Yes yes, then municipalities will shorten yellow light durations… this is an example of a pathological edge case than can be remedied, and doesn’t warrant throwing out the baby with the bathwater, IMO. We should also consider that the privacy concerns being raised against LPRs are also edge cases. Can’t we have the benefits of LPRs as well as systems that prevent and punish abuses of such technology?
> I think machines that cause death and destruction and provide easy escape from crime scenes should be monitored while operating in public domains
This ignores the other issues that come with these systems. People concerned with Flock cameras are largely not complaining about catching criminals.
> We should also consider that the privacy concerns being raised against LPRs are also edge cases. Can’t we have the benefits of LPRs as well as systems that prevent and punish abuses of such technology?
These aren’t really edge cases. Abuses of surveillance systems seem ubiquitous and rarely are punished.
The US is a nation where a man was put in jail for over a month for posting an anti Trump meme and it seems literally nothing will happen to the people who did this to him. We seem categorically unable to punish abuse of power for some reason.
That’s not a revealed preference, but a stated one. My guess is that the councilman perceives the revealed preference to be: “I’m willing to give up privacy for convenience” and this is a way to get people to examine why they want certain conveniences at the cost of privacy, like doordash, netflix, facebook marketplace or group messages, vs others where they say they don’t, like convenience of law enforcement to track down criminals.
Do you happen to have an example? The closest I can think of is adobe for images, but I've never heard of a text based llm trained purely on legally acquired books.
They sell them at the end of their life, sometimes, so you recoup a bit of the cost there. And you can also get books donated which reduces the up front cost.
I don't see a good way to do that for digital copies, and of course the expiry would be wholly artificial scarcity for them even if it was only a little bit more expensive than physical.
A large crop harvester is a tool, but if you used to work on a farm by hand it's not a tool you're going to get to use. It's a replacement for your labour and value, right? someone else will get to use the tool and earn money.
So the question is in what way ai is a tool to these kids.
The harvester is super expensive, using an LLM is not.
Who’s to say AI is not a democratizing force? Like the Internet? And book printing before that? Suddenly we all have a Personal Assistant, suddenly we can all build tools to make the computer do what we want.
Hey where is Stephen Fry with his podcasts when you need him!
did you have a real estate developer come and visit your school and talk about how the surging house prices were really helpful for them
I think this is just it being blatant. it doesn't necessarily mean anything will come of it but of course tensions will be high if you get an ai pitch instead of a congratulation speech
Up and down your stairs at home, walking to shops or work, or dedicated gym / biking / walk time before bed is basically it. If you have a tight schedule that can be very hard and if you live in the wrong type of housing it's also harder unfortunately
That only requires someone own the ai managed McDonald's though. so long as they can't avoid responsibility by pointing to the AI I don't see why you couldn't sue them.
reply