NihilsineNefas

It’s 100% irresponsible. Especially given how many of then are going rogue.

How do you guardrail the machine that is programmed to literally make things up and/or tell you you’re doing a great job while it does it?

The difference is that there are people who train very specifically to know exactly how the inside of the car works, and they’re legally liable for the state of how said car works after they work on it.

If your engine blows up after a service, you blame the mechanic, if it blows up after you bought it bew you blame the manufacturer.

If your slop bot goes rogue and starts giving your personal details out to people it shouldn’t when all you did is ask it to make a picture of a cat in a stetson, or in the case of grok, generates csam as part of its regular functions, what else do you do but blame the company that created it?

Very true, I know plenty of professionals that aren’t the most well versed in their specialist topic.

There’s also a case to be made for the sheer lack of funding going into education that leads to situations where teachers aren’t getting the training they need to be as knowledgeable as possible.

100% true, though in the same vein as I said; it would take a lot of agents personally listening in to cover the sheer volume of phonecalls and radio transmissions that occurred over just the US, let alone the level of granularity they have with today’s “every message on every service goes through a datacenter server and is analysed in realtime” mode of surveillance that leads to things like this teacher being raided for a snapchat message faster than the cops responded to Uvalde.

To be fair to her, she’s 22, and a trainee.

Being brought up from day one in a surveillance state probably makes it easy to forget that every action is being watched

Maybe not over 80 years if only due to the lack of technology (it would have taken a lot of agents manning a lot of switchboards to listen in on every telephone conversation), but saying “at least since the late 60s” wouldn’t be inaccurate at all

Sweet fucking jesus that’s not a mental image I wanted but by god did it crack me up.

It’s like Dylan Moran’s bit about the “Ideal body” from Monster (top tier stand up show if you haven’t seen it)

Eglin must be having a staffing issue after everyone caught the lettuce shits

Oh I know it isn’t, because I trust google as far as I can throw a datacenter.

But I’m still struggling to see the use of an app that makes you stop and go “let me ask my app to turn on my remote connection feature and search to see if this person is wearing the pervert glasses.” instead of using my eyes and going “That guy looks like he’s wearing pervert glasses, I’m leaving the area.”

So you have to leave bluetooth on, which means your device is broadcasting an active bluetooth signal.

nytimes.com/…/bluetooth-wireless-tracking-privacy…

If any random shop can use any phone’s active bluetooth to track and profile every user that’s i side or nearby, I don’t want to have bluetooth active when in public. Genuinely not worth it just to fi d some glasshole pervert when my own eyes can do the job without giving away any more of my data. That’s what I’m on about.

I don’t even trust the “only give permission to use [camera/mic/bluetooth/location] while the app is active” setting.

I would not enter a public space with my phone lit up like a EM Christmas tree, sonar pinging every receiver in sight.

Let alone giving some rando app the access to every piece of NFC/radio comms on the off chance it can positively identify someone’s spy glasses, because that means if they are, ive just given their spy glasses my phone’s identifiers, and I’m spending more time near them and more time to possibly end up on some shady company’s panopticon server.

It’s like the people suggesting shining a laser into a flock camera, it might destroy a bit of the sensor, but they’ve also put a highly visible beam of light directly from themselves to it.

So they want the chat bot that lies instead of the science machine that cures cancers.

Wouldn’t expect any less from the company that removed “Dont be evil” from its company charter.

Reminding you of the name and possibly previous interactions with the person you’re talking to, for instance (if it only did local lookup based on consensual photos you had previously added to your address book). I’m not face-blind or anything, but my memory is bad enough that that would be helpful to me.

I would rather the person shattered a glass fountain pen in my urethra than scanned my face because they forgot my name.

The even-worse-case scenario of "went to a conference and forgot I had my mic still on when I went to the bathroom, so everyone heard me calling the urinal a “thirsty boy”. "

While useful, I would not want my device to be constantly pinging every device around it with wifi, bluetooth, or whatever other radio signal, on the off chance it might catch someone wearing the most groucho marx looking spyglasses on the planet when my own eyes can do that for me.

If not for the sake of my battery life, then for the same reason why I dont leave my bluetooth or wifi on- less avenues for people nearby to gain easy remote access to my device.

Oh nah no need to apologise, their products haven’t been good for decades. Merely making a point about how tech can be entirely hidden from the user

Iphone SE’s didnt have face unlock but still use the IR camera to scan your face every second.

Just because you don’t use it doesn’t mean it’s not being used on you (apologies for breaking it to you)