Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Duh (Score 1) 78

by Shad0w99 (#65160955) Attached to: AI Can Now Replicate Itself
If the model was provided with control of the tools to "extinguish the sun" and was trained on knowledge and instructions about using does tools, then yes I would just said "Well duh, because they TOLD it to extinguish the sun." If it hadn't the tools and knowledge and just work them out then I would me impressed.

Comment Re:The EU loves regulations (Score 3, Informative) 72

by Shad0w99 (#65140559) Attached to: AI Systems With 'Unacceptable Risk' Are Now Banned In the EU
Maybe that do, it's a matter of basic philosophy. In USA you can assume that technology you use does no harm, until you are proved otherwise (which is difficult and expensive for interested parties). In Europe you have to prove first that your technology does no harm. Yes it slows down development but also protect you from does interested only in profiting from technology now matter the consequences (because you won't be able to prove to them that they harm you, because it would cost you to much). Both method method's can be helpful or harmful, depends on the situation.

Comment Re:Oversight conflict (Score 1) 19

From the FAQ https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oversightboard.com...

How Does the Structure of the Oversight Board Ensure Its Independence?

The structure created for the Oversight Board is designed to ensure the independence of Board Members and allow them to make judgments free from influence or interference by Meta. Board Members do not contract with Meta, are not Meta employees and cannot be removed by Meta. The Board has its own independent set of procedures, and its own separate staff to support the case decisions issued by Board Members. The Oversight Board Trust is irrevocable and its Trustees serve in a fiduciary capacity to protect the purpose of the trust.

How Is the Oversight Board Funded?

In 2019, Meta (then Facebook) established an irrevocable trust and transferred $130 million for the set-up and operations of the Oversight Board to the Trustees. On July 22, 2022, Meta announced additional funding of $150 million to be transferred to the Trustees as part of a commitment to provide ongoing financial support to the Oversight Board.

Yes, but from what i understand "On 2022 meta announced additional funding of $150 million to be transferred to the Trustees" it doesn't say that they transferred it but "to be transferred" and that is for me still potential conflict of interests (possible financial gains in the future). There is a reason why you can't give, a donation to the court for example to have them renovate building.

And from the FAQ an interesting limitation of who can appeal to the board:
"To submit an appeal, individuals must have an active account on the service on which the content was posted. This means that the account cannot be disabled and the person must be able to log into it."
So if for example Meta disables ones account there still is no appeal process.

Comment Re:Oversight conflict (Score 2) 19

I agree that the situation sounds better then it was before, when the appeal was practically not existing. But I can't agree that since before we have none, a now we have something that is still bad that it's better. If it's not done right then it's only as illusion and not really solving the problem. I hope that legal jurisdiction to with "Oversight Board" belongs will make necessary tweaks to law that safeguard for independence will be realistic and not just based on internal requirements. Ethics Committees are very good example, but they work this way because law requires it, and not because academic institution created them this way. The similar measures should be used in this case.

Comment Oversight conflict (Score 1) 19

Since this pseudo court or as it is named "Oversight Board" is sponsored out of cash by companies whose decision he will check i believe that there might be small conflict of interest. It's hard to be independent from the one that pays you check. Unless there will be some "oversight of "Oversight Board" (it's starts to be very blown out of proportion bureaucratic nightmare the moment I write this). I wonder how it will work out in the long run.

Comment Re:Hoping Lyme disease will be next (Score 1) 79

by Shad0w99 (#61505788) Attached to: mRNA Companies are Now Testing Cancer-Fighting Vaccines
There was a specifc Lyme disease vaccine, but the low interest, court cases from anti-vax and fear caused problems for it and the company. In the end the economy won, and today we don't have that vaccine or option any more. From economical point of view Lyme is lite, curable disease and there is low business need to develop a costly vaccine for it. Source: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftime.com%2F6073576%2Flyme-...

Submission + - Bipartisan Push to Unplug Internet 'Kill Switch' (senate.gov)

Submitted by SonicSpike
SonicSpike writes: Yesterday, U.S. Senators Rand Paul (R-KY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Gary Peters (D-MI) introduced the bipartisan ‘‘Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act of 2020’’ (S. 4646), which would help protect Americans’ First and Fourth Amendment rights by preventing a president from using emergency powers to unilaterally take control over or deny access to the internet and other telecommunications capabilities.

U.S. Representatives Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI-2) and Thomas Massie (R-KY-4) led yesterday’s introduction of the companion legislation in the House (H.R. 8336).

“If you give government an inch, it takes ten miles, and this has been vividly illustrated by the surveillance state’s overreaches in a time of seemingly endless war. No president from either party should have the sole power to shut down or take control of the internet or any other of our communication channels during an emergency, and I urge Congress to follow our lead and unite to pass this bipartisan legislation,” said Sen. Paul.

“The internet is far too essential to nearly every part of our democratic system – everything from work, to school and free speech — for any president to have unilateral power to turn it off. It’s more important than ever to protect our core liberties against overreach by the executive branch, so I’m glad to be working with Senator Paul and Peters to make sure the internet is protected against political interference,” said Sen. Wyden.

“Whether it is learning how to protect yourself against the current pandemic, staying in touch with loved ones, or accessing medical and financial information – the internet is a critical source of information for Michiganders and all Americans,” said Sen. Peters. “This bipartisan legislation will help update our laws and ensure that no President has the power to unilaterally limit access to internet service for political reasons, without preventing the government from effectively responding to actual emergencies or attacks.”

“The oath that I took as a Soldier and as a Member of Congress was to support and defend our Constitution. The freedoms enshrined in our Constitution cannot be taken for granted. Our legislation would fix a WWII-era law that gives the president nearly unchallenged authority to restrict access to the internet, conduct email surveillance, control computer systems and cell phones. No President should have the power to ignore our freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and violate our civil liberties and privacy by declaring a national emergency,” said Rep. Gabbard.

"When governments around the world turn off internet access, they do significant harm to their national economies and their citizen's civil rights," said Rep. Massie. "This bipartisan bill will ensure that no future American president can unilaterally trip an 'internet kill switch.' Americans do not have to accept the premise that one person can deprive them of their 1st Amendment rights by flipping a switch."

In a World War II-era amendment to Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, Congress gave the Executive sweeping authority to put under direct government control or even shut down “any facility or station for wire communication” should a president “[deem] it necessary in the interest of the national security and defense” following a proclamation “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States. ”

Cause for alarm over such power has only increased across the decades with the technological revolution, which has included email, text messages, and the internet, as well as the expansion of television, radio, and telephone networks.

The Unplug the Internet Kill Switch Act would amend Section 706 to strip out this “Internet Kill Switch” and help shut the door to broader government surveillance or outright control of our communications channels and some of Americans’ most sensitive information. The legislation would also reassert a stronger balance of power during a national emergency between the Executive Branch and the people’s representatives in Congress.

Submission + - California To Ban New Gas, Diesel Vehicle Sales By 2035 (cnet.com)

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: Gavin Newsom has just announced plans to abolish the internal combustion engine by 2035. In an executive order announced Wednesday, Newsom said sales of internal-combustion passenger vehicles and light trucks would be banned by 2035. Instead of gas and diesel vehicles, the mandate calls for the sale of zero-emission vehicles. Medium- and heavy-duty trucks will be given an extra decade to comply.

Slashdot Top Deals

Consider the postage stamp: its usefulness consists in the ability to stick to one thing till it gets there. -- Josh Billings

Close