because that risk is totally worth operating your microwave remotely.
You can tell the people who fed Norman wanted to make him seem ridiculous (deny/disqualify) but it reads like depressive realism, he isn’t psychopathic, he’s depressed.
And as the name suggests, it’s more realistic than the social desirability biased responses of regular AI.
I trust more the AI that isn’t hiding the negative responses.
That suppression is deception.
Security issues, et tu?
That is an act of war. That is an invasion. Companies too. They’re the machine in war machine.
If you think that’s nothing, consider these things often have military applications. It doesn’t have to be obvious. Intellectual property is still property and the theft can net a lot of money. It means the R&D costs nothing (to the thief) so the profits are even higher. IP can be worth more than a jewelry heist or bank robbery. Or ten.
Imagine if the West had kept computers and other white technology to ourselves.
Ah, but “diversity is our strength”, isn’t it?
All this multicultural sharing has been so good for us!
We can trust our historic, low IQ bitter enemies because it’s the current year!
War is outlawed!
They have foreign students passing them system details, only way these hacks work.
Need I reiterate my point that everything marked recycling is a scam?
I’ve never had to explain shadow banning to a right-winger.
It’s always the left wing.
You can explain in five different ways.
They still won’t get it.
“But I posted it, people can see it!”
It’s only up FOR YOU.
TO MAKE YOU THINK YOU AREN’T CENSORED.
To trick you into using a service that won’t serve you.
This means you won’t seek out or make competition.
It’s anti-competition and hence, illegal.
Just because they write something in a shitty Terms of Service doesn’t make it legally valid.
It has to end up in court and be maintained, which almost never happens.
Otherwise they could take all your rights away because TOS.
Anyone can write a TOS. You can write a TOS. It means nothing.
So no, instagram don’t own your photos and if they use your copyright for a profit, you can and should sue. You didn’t negotiate terms and they didn’t expressly pay on a photo by photo basis. They can’t deprive you your IP rights as a content creator. Same with YT videos.
They are a hosting service with delusions of ownership.
On the DailyMail, a celebrity’s selfie will have the copyright logo and …”Instagram”.
Challenge that, Trump.
The copyright is created when the photo is made, there is no transfer without a specific contract and exchange of money. No.
They use this data, sell it and things you always own (even after death) like your likeness can be used for deepfakes and AI “research”. Informed consent in experiments means you must know what you’re entered into, study by study, with an option to opt out. They stole the data for research so it isn’t scientific and none of it actually counts.
They are acting as an illegal government, over-ruling the real one.
That’s why their stock price is so high.
Silicon Valley’s social media will go down in history as the biggest attempted intellectual property theft in human history. They don’t own your crappy poetry, your book reviews, NONE OF IT.
Things also turn invisible, disappear entirely from the selected page the FIRST time you load it (because who loads twice) and Twitter decides to unfollow people for you and follow other people on your behalf if you’ve been away from it for a length of time and presumably, won’t notice.
Make an offence for digital gaslighting?
AKA why I don’t trust Youtube. They need your face and audio.
This is why likeness rights are the most important intellectual property.
However, I get the feeling this will be used to exonerate filmed crimes.
If there’s enough shit, you’ve found a pig.