You’re liable for the murder that you ordered. This is a legal distinction where building something isn’t. Technically if you order AI to kill someone and it goes off and does it, you didn’t kill someone, you prompted it to. This is all theoretical as AI doesn’t have the ability outright kill someone, so this is all under the presumption that AI has a physical means of killing someone unattended.

If this AI were more like a gun where you pointed it at someone and commanded it to shoot, then you killed someone use AI as a weapon.

I will say there is nuance that can be debated between when AI use crosses from a supplemental tool to vibe coding. I don’t have a clear cut answer on that and don’t have the drive to go into it further, but I will concede that.

Those are all false equivalencies. All of those are tools to supplement a job. Using AI to vibe code an app is not a tool, it’s wait service, like the comic illustrates.

If you auto generated an entire message, like prompting AI to write you an email, then no, you didn’t write a message. If you auto complete words that you intended to write, then you used tools to help write a message that you created.

A hammer is a tool to build something. Vibe coding is like buying an IKEA piece of furniture and claiming you built it. You didn’t build anything, you assembled someone else’s build. If you had a magic hammer trained on other people’s work and you told it to build a chair, then no, you would not have built a chair.

Computer software is again a tool to complete a job. If you do the engineering, design, and build the antenna, then that’s like programming, yes you designed an antenna. If you tell the software you want an antenna and it generates plans you didn’t design an antenna, you ordered plans for one.

If you ask AI to kill someone, that’s like taking a hammer and killing someone. Yes, you used a tool to kill someone.

It’s the complete generation of work and the claim that someone did it themselves that is what AI works are at their core. There is a small skill to prompting most effectively, but that’s not creating anything. It’s at most building an outline for something. Skilled developers can review code and make corrections, but they didn’t create anything.

I think there’s some difference in 3d printing. If you find a premade model online with written settings, then print it saying you made it, taking credit for the design, that’s what vibe coding is more like. It would be more apt to say you printed it. If you create a model via 3d modeling, cad, gdnt, etc, then that’s more like programming, and you can say you made it and that be true and honest.

Explain how it’s a stupid take? This comic is exactly what AI does. You tell it to do something, it sometimes kinda does. You didn’t create anything.

I think this is nice on paper, but I personally would never have any tech installed in me that could be exploited. 100% the government at some point would fuck it up and use it for hate crimes, or places would scan them and target you with ads or worse. It’s unfortunate that the world can’t be full of empathetic trustworthy people so we could have nice things like this.

I’ve taken pay cuts to work at better jobs. Meta would have to offer me CEO money and a position where I could break shit “on accident”. After the damage is done, I could ride my golden parachute back down to Earth and use thatoney for good, like fighting against Meta DCs and stuff.

Correct. I’m just saying that I proof read my work, that I deploy things, and that I don’t proof read my texts.

I mostly mean proof what I’ve written prior to having someone else test. I often will comment out lines when trying different things so I just make sure I clean up what I’ve done. We have a few human checks as well as some automated checks between each stage of deployment for each environment.

I barely proof read anything I type on my phone, and my comment history is a testament to that. I deploy code or system changes most days, but I proof read the shit out of those on top of the QC they goes through. Any company worth anything will have a process for reviewing and approving anything being deployed, or probably destroyed for that matter.

60dB is like a constant conversation happening by your ear, non stop, and at a constant shrill frequency. A person shouldn’t have to significantly alter their lifestyle to accommodate a blight on humanity that’s also destroying the environment.

I’ve been happy to do it for free, but if there’s money to be made, I need to market myself better.

Like I said, it would be better if they listed the full price. My only argument is that it shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that’s had a subscription. Mildly irritating is a fair assessment, it just doesn’t bother me personally.

It looks like the monthly price is 10€ per month. I just looked mine up and it’s $9.99. my 1 year option is $4.99 (50%) and the 2 year option is $2.99 (70%). So the percentages don’t line up with mine, but they are consistent in that 1 month is $10. If OP is paying monthly with no commitment, then I don’t find volume pricing infuriating, but I do find it odd that the percentages aren’t the same across the board. Of course if you’re already on a $2.99 plan and they’re grandfathering you into pricing, then I have no problems with any of it. That’s how every subscription like this works, discounts for longer commitment.

Also, the pricing is listed as per month with a month based commitment. That’s also standard practice. Yes, it’s all required up front, but they are more or less itemizing the fees. I agree that having the total listed would be an upgrade, but this is how all of my subscriptions operate.

I don’t know what I’m missing here. The pricing looks fair. Longer term agreements usually mean cheaper per month pricing. It looks like OP is on a 24 month plan that I assume is expiring. What the infuriating part? It’s it that the ad popped up on the first place?

There are a handful of easily searchable lawsuits against flock cameras. I only say it that way because linking those is a pain on mobile and there’s enough examples that it’s easily searchable. Not trying to be defensive or deflecting.

I’ll concede that “the only option” was not good phrasing. However I still believe that it’s inline with going through proper channels. Even if the law comes through and bans flock, throughout that entire process, they are still recording. My belief is that this is a positive action and this person that risk his freedom is something of a hero.

I see your point of view and understand what you mean, but I just don’t agree with it. Sometimes anarchy is the answer, although I agree that it would be best done en masse rather than individually.

Hard disagree on the bags thing. Again, proper channel have been followed by other parties multiple times to no avail. The government is profiting off of flock cameras, so they will not change. That leaves one option, and that’s destruction. Putting a bag over allows someone to just remove the bag. If enough cameras are smashed and have to be replaced infinitely, then maybe they’ll get the hint or the cost will exceed the value. It has to be effort and cost for them to fix or replace them, otherwise it’s a minor inconvenience.

Destruction is the only viable path to freedom. Trying to get it done legally in a flawed system who’s bias is pro flock cameras is not an option as has been proven.

Sure it can give them ammo, but the alternative is not giving them an excuse to which they’ll continue unabated. At least this way they have to work for it.

If you think that flock cameras should exist, then we are just never going to be on the same page, because their monitoring and the ability to search a person’s location without warrant is illegal, and that’s what’s happening. It’s established that going through “the proper channels” is not an option. They will not remove them because have a corrupt government that is the enemy of the people. Given the above, what options are left? A bag over the camera is nothing, but the consequences are likely the same as if it were destroyed. That means if someone is willing to put themselves at risk, then the best option is destruction. If enough people got on board, there’s nothing the government could do. There’s way more of us than there are of them.

Sometimes legality and the right thing don’t align, and this is one of those times.

Except that burning down the black mailer’s house doesn’t stop the blackmailer. If the blackmailer were a computer, not a living creature, then it would be more like destroying the computer, but still a little different just due to the scale. Flock cameras violate everyone’s rights where a blackmailing computer, in theory, is affecting one person.

Further, the legal channels to silence a blackmailer have a history of success, probably because it’s not the government doing the blackmailing, so they aren’t trying to defend themselves. Compared to flock cameras where the government has a vested interest in keeping the running, so they will block and ignore legal challenges against them.

This is cornering people leaving the only option as destruction as other methods have failed. It’s acceptable to go outside the bounds of the law to correct injustice, especially on a scale as big as this. I believe that to be true about anything, not just this. Luigi is an example. He allegedly took action because the system failed. He solved one problem and temporarily created positive change at his own expense. Had he been able to burn down the company and destroy their process instead of allegedly killing a man, that would be better, but that wasn’t an option, so he allegedly did what he thought was necessary, and there’s a reason he’s got such significant support.

The government is the enemy of the people. They are installing devices that violate the rights of citizens. All legal action against them for flock cameras has resulted in no change, regardless of whether or not this person tried to go through those same channels. That leaves the people to defend our rights by whatever means are necessary to do so, including but not limited to disabling those cameras permanently.

If I see a person kidnapping a child, I can use force to stop them. I could call the cops and hope they arrive and stop the crime from happening, but for the safety of the kidnappee and the general public, doing it myself may result in the best outcome at the risk of my own safety. Disabling flock cameras is like stopping a kidnapper.

Business data doesn’t require the mega datacenters that are all compute for AI. Those types of datacenters won’t have the same issues with infrastructure for power and closed loop systems. If they do, they’ll figure it out because they have the money to do so. Someone will build them. DCs that have storage and racks for cloud compute are in a different category.

I agree and mentioned that talking heads will spin regulations in a way that convinces their idiotic base that there’s an issue. It’s not the regulations that are the problem, it’s the media. But the thing is, If it’s not regulations, it will be something else. It will be just as nonsensical, but something will fill that gap. Might as well do something good if the propaganda is gonna flow anyway.

Per itar regulations, government data already has to live in the US. They will never change that law in order to store it in another country’s DC.

And putting barriers on multi bullion dollar businesses is not the same as putting it on citizens. People aren’t going to vote a Republican because of regulations on a DC that makes the neighborhood quieter and cleaner, stops excessive water consumption for cooling, and forces them to build their own power infrastructure. They will vote Republican for a million other dumb AF reasons, including a conservative taking head telling them regulations are bad for DCs, but they won’t do it because of those reasons. They won’t even know what those reasons are