It’s a car’s world, we’re just walkin in it.

Sounds like NHTSA recommended the veto so we don’t end up with competing standards.

Good move, IMO. For a system as large as this, with severe safety implications, you really don’t want to start on the wrong foot.

Firearms play a critical role in suicide deaths, being used in over 50% of all suicides in 2022. The availability and lethality of firearms contribute significantly to the high suicide rates, particularly among men. Recent data shows that increases in firearm suicides are driving the overall rise in suicide deaths, with 2022 recording the highest number of gun-related suicides on record. This underscores the importance of addressing firearm access as part of suicide prevention strategies.

Reminder that most suicide attempts are in response to an acute crisis, like an argument with a loved one, and go from initial idea to action in less than 30 minutes.

Survivors report perceived lethality of firearms being a primary factor in their decision.

Access to lethal means can make all the difference between a bad day and a last day.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter

I’ll believe it when GN says it.

There’s this podcast I used to enjoy (I still enjoy it, but they stopped making new episodes) called Build For Tomorrow (previously known as The Pessimists Archive).

It’s all about times in the past where people have freaked out about stuff changing but it all turned out okay.

After having listened to every single episode — some multiple times — I’ve got this sinking feeling that just mocking the worries of the past misses a few important things.

1. The paradox of risk management. If you have a valid concern, and we collectively do something to respond to it and prevent the damage, it ends up looking as if you were worried over nothing.
2. Even for inventions that are, overall, beneficial, they can still bring new bad things with them. You can acknowledge both parts at once. When you invent trains, you also invent train crashes. When you invent electricity, you also invent electrocution. That doesn’t mean you need to reject the whole idea, but you need to respond to the new problems.
3. There are plenty of cases where we have unleashed horrors onto the world while mocking the objections of the pessimists. Lead, PFAS, CFCs, radium paint, etc.

I’m not so sure that the concerns about AI “killing culture” actually are as overblown as the worry about cursive, or record players, or whatever. The closest comparison we have is probably the printing press. And things got so weird with that so quickly that the government claimed a monopoly on it. This could actually be a problem.

• Nearest market: 600m
• Nearest big supermarket: 5.2km
• Nearest bus stop: 5km
• Nearest park: 1km
• Nearest library: 1.6km
• Nearest train station: 26km

Having a small market so close is a massive improvement from my previous address, where the only option was a big supermarket 3.9km away.

Story 2 - clipping.

The time signature changes create a surreal effect. In the first half of the track, it creates a feeling of being lost in thought. And then in the end it becomes a sense of panic.

If you like that, I also recommend live for no audience during a global pandemic

Basically this: Flying Too High: AI and Air France Flight 447

Description

Panic has erupted in the cockpit of Air France Flight 447. The pilots are convinced they’ve lost control of the plane. It’s lurching violently. Then, it begins plummeting from the sky at breakneck speed, careening towards catastrophe. The pilots are sure they’re done-for.

Only, they haven’t lost control of the aircraft at all: one simple manoeuvre could avoid disaster…

In the age of artificial intelligence, we often compare humans and computers, asking ourselves which is “better”. But is this even the right question? The case of Air France Flight 447 suggests it isn’t - and that the consequences of asking the wrong question are disastrous.

attendee’s

Here comes an s!

Arguably one of the most important groups to hear from if we’re gonna find the right balance between freedom to create and freedom from harm.

Guns don’t kill people. Gunmen kill people.

Now, you might ask: How do men become gunmen?

They’re born a man, and then one day they just decide to identify as a gunman? Makes no sense.

It’s those gun groomers. Corrupting your kid’s mind.

Ice cubes. From a cup. That they are shaking periodically between sips/bites.

Not as good, tbh. The straw is a necessary component to maximize the bubbles.

People leaving pro-AI comments in !fuck_ai@lemmy.world lmao

Looks more like an egg to me

I was a little older, like 3rd grade, but same. Nightmares about being overrun by bug hordes for months and months.

Technology is not neutral.

Especially for a tool that’s specifically marketed for people to delegate decision-making to it, we need to seriously question the person-tool separation.

That alleged separation is what lets gig economy apps abuse their workers in ways no flesh-and-blood boss would get away with, as well as RealPage’s decentralized price-fixing cartel, and any number of instances of “math-washing” justifying discrimination.

The entire big tech ethos is basically to do horrible shit in such tiny increments that there is no single instance to meaningfully prosecute. (Edit: As always, Mike Judge is relevant: https://youtu.be/yZjCQ3T5yXo)

We need to take this seriously. Language is perhaps the single most important invention of our species, and we’re at risk of the social equivalent of Kessler Syndrome. And for what? So we can write “thank you” notes quicker?

Bean lied to*

The pieces fit in my ass

I’m sympathetic to the reflexive impulse to defend OpenAI out of a fear that this whole thing results in even worse copyright law.

I, too, think copyright law is already smothering the cultural conversation and we’re potentially only a couple of legislative acts away from having “property of Disney” emblazoned on our eyeballs.

But don’t fall into their trap of seeing everything through the lens of copyright!

We have other laws!

We can attack OpenAI on antitrust, likeness rights, libel, privacy, and labor laws.

Being critical of OpenAI doesn’t have to mean siding with the big IP bosses. Don’t accept that framing.