Ouch. Solid burn, and on point. Well played.

First, don't invke a "both sides" fallacy. It's stupid.
Second, is there any evidence anywhere that the US engages in any of these? Because it's already known that Russia does both, and in fact uses chemical weapons such as vx/novochik
Third, president Nixon issued an executive order mandating that no government entities engage in this in any way at all, and unlike your tsar's decrees, executive orders have no effect if they're not made pubic, so they can't be secretly cancelled, amended, or ignored. We have a system of checks and balances, you do not.

You can look these up on DuckDuckGo, Google or any search engine, do you think every photo was AI generated or AI altered? If we're going to start baselessly dismissing photos as AI X, then everyone, in every photo they don't like, is just an AI fever dream. My point to why we can believe the pictures, look at the bills, he's not trying to protect children, he's trying to violently digitally molest them, and collect CSAM, why? I listed the bills C-34, C-36, C-8, and C-22, all a means to collect and abuse, and importantly, not just abuse adults, abuse children, his favourite pass time. I also mentioned C-9, but that doesn't apply for this, it's just an idiotic far-left bill.

It looks nothing like it. We've been pre-emptively arresting people on actionable threats of imminent danger for decades. There's no slippery slope here, it's the endless flat plane we're on. There is nothing new here.

Not so sure about that. I made it all the way to 6th October 2026 without AI models on my PC and still can't see why I would want one or why it would be worth wasting 12GB on.

That's not covert. We know fully well that anyone putting their phone in their breast pocket with the cameras visible is a pervert, because only perverts keep their phone in their breast pocket with the cameras visible.

Yes, and masturbated furiously to pictures of people in restrooms. It created new genres of porn for people's enjoyment, and created new ways to destroy people's lives.

You may have survived, presumably that's because no one thinks someone would masturbate to you.

Sidenote: a friend of mine has been shot, has a nice scar in her shoulder to prove it. She survived. Maybe we don't need laws against shooting people, after all everyone *I* know who has been shot survived.

I'm in Ontario, Canada.

I think Flock is accountable here, they built an AI that gives unwarranted trust. If Flock is really innocent, lets open Flock to everyone, and let anyone use it's massive cache, since it's recording the people, and the people control the government; therefore, people should have access to what Flock captures. I think Flock should be flipped, let it record the government, and government employees, and let the people monitor it, to make sure our tax dollars aren't being wasted.

If Miranda rights were written a little like the Second Amendment, police would indeed have a PD in house for this. But even the 2nd Amendment, despite 'shall not...', is regularly sidestepped. Bear in mind, though, that in many big cities the schools are teaching that police are the enemy. They fail, however, to follow that up with 0) know your rights, and 1) STAY OUT OF TROUBLE. But to make big city school systems are cheating students out of a future. It's criminal.

The headline is reasonable if we all agree that AI gives us something worth the down sides. We do not.

Few outside the billionaires of Silicon Valley actually believe the hype. The average Joe is largely annoyed when their favorite productivity tools suddenly have "Smarter Clippy" shoehorned in. Or talk with some of AI's heaviest users (programmers) and you'll hear a pretty common theme: "Wow, Claude makes it easy to hit my Q3 targets, bummer it's going to put us all out of work (or far, far worse) five years from now."

If we eliminated the second and fourth through eighth amendments to the US constitution, Uncle Sam would have a much easier time solving crimes. Nobody is disputing that. We as a society, however, have deemed it unacceptable for jackbooted thugs to kick down our - your - doors at any time without due process protections. We would prefer some crimes go unsolved over living in a constant state of fear toward an uncontrollable police state.

If you live in a high-crime area, I have some bad news for you - The USSC has bluntly stated the police have no "duty to protect". The police could already be doing far more to help you, and are instead choosing to focus on high-value property crimes over keeping you and your neighbors safe. Do you really believe they just need one more civil rights eroding tool to finally convince them to make a good faith effort at doing their damned jobs?

What you need is the erasure of the "thin blue line", not more ALPRs to allow the police to focus even more exclusively on crimes against the rich.

That's never the question. No one is expected to answer that. Questions are not permitted. Asking questions is clue #1 your a Nazi.

The world should accept some bad things happening when we defund law enforcement.

The world should accept some bad things happening when the kids get trans-ed.

The world should accept some bad things happening when incarceration is obviated.

The world should accept some bad things happening when we unionize government workers.

The world should accept some bad things happening when we obviate standardized testing.

Finally, after having decided that all these things are the unquestioned purview of our most virtuous Great And Good, and a cohort of elites is entirely accustomed to inflicting whatever model for the world they prefer: 'The World Should Accept Some Bad Things Happening' For the Benefits of AI.

Ok. You're in their hands now, right where you put yourself. Enjoy.

No where, we go, assume a threat is real, investigate and let the legal system deal with the results. People seem to think that police work extends to just acting on a phone call and calling it a day, it doesn't. Arresting some people for something which turned out to be false isn't that much of an issue, unless the arrest itself is actually violent (e.g. SWATting)

In most countries in the world people are pre-emptively detained if there's an uncertain and unclear risk. They are then investigated and usually either released or detention extended within a day.

So first it was opt in, but because nobody really wanted or asked for it, it became opt out. Still, nobody wanted it, so now they don't even get a choice. And ifans wonder why I don't like apple.

Altman is the ultimate dick.