Olives @olives@qoto.org

I'd like Malcolm to post the raw FOIA requests (letters) he received / sent.

It's not a big part of the story, it's just a joke the author put in.

To be fair, it's not inaccurate.

I've always found "AI" to be a vague term. It might mean LLMs. It might mean predictive policing. It might mean facial recognition.

I'm reading an Internet novel, and in it, an AI doctor scans someone and tells them to masturbate to improve their health.

The author is very creative. Lol.

It was a number of months ago but I think those two Japanese lawmakers were interested in AI transparency.

The EFF does a lot of work behind the scenes which you don't see. They keep the Internet functional. You should donate to them.

Speaking of CSOs, CSOs do a lot of work behind the scenes that you don't see. An example of this is the EFF. The EFF's work keeps the Internet functional. You should donate to them.

Yeah, I mean, when I voice a concern, a lot of the time, it's because we have been down this road before and we didn't like what we found at the end of it.

As someone pointed out, Bluesky is not the first platform which was decentralized not really decentralized and which went down a puritanical route.

I think due process / procedural concerns (i.e. we need precedent to protect human rights) are valid but it's important not to misrepresent the situation because that can lead to confusion.

I'm assuming it was a mistake made by a new under-resourced CSO which was spread too thin.

I waited for the discourse to trickle in about this, and sure enough, the new KOSA still has issues.

Looks like Dr. Ley was in Australia to talk about porn. He's been critical of puritanism before.

Do you remember Valvrave? Lol.

Apparently, the German government wants to use facial recognition in some public spaces.

Anime openings are cool.

Unfortunately, there's no OS called Doors. Lol.

It's not even a new hypothetical. It's a hypothetical from the *90s*.

Also, you have to imagine that policy interventions are likely to have negative implications, and these implications might not be obvious. This is already a problem. It's even worse if someone is coming up with policy interventions for scenarios and technologies which don't even exist.

What if robots became sentient? What if animals could talk? (parrots don't count). Should they have rights? This is admittedly an extreme example, but hypotheticals get into realms which are divorced from meaningful discourse.

One involves VR which is far more advanced than what exists. But, it's pointless to hypothesize about (as if it matters to policy), because it doesn't exist.

If it was a real thing, I might have something to say, however, I don't really like to engage with hypotheticals. I don't really like abstract discussions with little to no real world value.