bignose

joined 1 year ago
 

In recent weeks the devices, dubbed "pervert glasses" by some critics for their capacity to film in secret, have inspired two Australian petitions calling for restrictions on their sale and import which attracted tens of thousands of signatures.

Now the Greens, with support of independents, plan to launch a bill when parliament next sits to halt the import of such glasses as well as other wearable recording devices for at least 12 months, until tougher privacy protections are passed into law.

"If we end up having millions of these devices in the country, there'll be no place that's free for your privacy," Greens senator David Shoebridge said.

"Right now it's glasses, but in a month's time it's almost certainly going to be earbuds, maybe it'll be a lapel pin, maybe it'll just be your T-shirt, I don't know".

He said parliament had a narrow window of time to block their large scale importation before such devices "wash through society".

"Maybe we should think ahead for once," Senator Shoebridge said.

Archive.org URL

[–] bignose@awful.systems 8 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

A decade ago, when I was Talking About Cryptocurrency (approving), in presentations etc., this was indeed a very frequent assumption of my audience. They would be confused and/or shocked when I referred to earlier in the presentation to show that no, every transaction on the blockchain is visible to everyone, forever, otherwise it can't even work.

I suspect a lot of the shocked response was due to the (unspoken) follow up question “then what the heck is the point of this, why would I use this?”

But I can see why the assumption comes along. Cryptography is all about secret, obscured communication; why wouldn't cryptocurrency be about secret money transactions?

At least now we can Talk About Cryptocurrency (derogatory) and dispel that assumption, where we can.

[–] bignose@awful.systems 9 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

David G: “What happens after the bubble pops? What do we do amongst the wreckage of what was once the AI bubble?”

Tante: “A question that really concerns me is [the data centres that have been built]; who will they [the future owners of data centres, after the hyperscalers stop paying] turn to, to get their money back? The only entities that I can think of that have the money to make this worth it, is the military, and the security apparatus. […]

“That is useful for a lot of shit that we don't want. That is a problem that really concerns me. Who has problems that fit to pattern-matching machines; and who has the money [to pay data centres to address those problems]? And that's gonna be a lot of military applications, that's gonna be a lot of security apparatus applications, that we all probably should not want.”

David G: “That's wonderfully probable and depressing.”

Tante: “I'm fun at parties.”

[–] bignose@awful.systems 15 points 1 week ago

The end result will probably be some sort of copy-protection system which will benefit those who want to censor the web and create paywalls and other gatekeeping methods to block access to content. We're better off with the web as it is now, written entirely in plaintext. Besides, obfuscation goes against the spirit the World Wide Web was founded on: free and open access to information for the benefit of humanity.

Emphatically agreed. The open web was already being closed down before the LLM hyperscalers; it is closing down even more rapidly, partly to defend against the LLM hyperscalers dunning every website with pointless scraping all the time.

If we respond by obfuscating the text on the web, we hurt ourselves enormously and still won't stop the LLM hyperscalers from ruining the web. It's a misguided, technical non-solution, for something that needs a political response.

[–] bignose@awful.systems 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

AI systems are never going to start getting dumber.

…hasn’t this already happened many times???

I mean, I guess it can be seen as technically true, because LLMs (the subset of AI they're clearly talking about here) already know exactly zero about reality or what's true. Can't know less than that.

[–] bignose@awful.systems 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's a minor tell, but when people claim to address global problems, I'm always alert to when those same people cite calendar time with “summer 2026” and the like, as though the northern hemisphere is the only one that matters. Revealing they actually don't give any thought to the world outside their local province.

[–] bignose@awful.systems 3 points 1 week ago

finding the [human created] data to support the project is uncharted territory, he added.

Fortunately for the executives at hyperscaler corporations, they know this isn't their problem.

They plan to cash out well before the model collapse is revealed, and leave less-wealthy suckers holding the bag.

[–] bignose@awful.systems 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

It’s like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Goose was not valued

[–] bignose@awful.systems 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I have no idea why they would do this

I do. For the same reason they are cramming LLMs into every other product:

They need to pretend to their investors that there is an enormous market hungry for more of this, so the investors will not demand their money back.

By turning more users of existing services, into “users of Gemini”; by turning more translate requests, more email messages, more search requests, into a “Gemini usage”; they can with a straight face claim more and ever more usage and demand, propped up by users who never agreed to any of this.

 

Edi Zitron has an exclusive report on OpenAI's 2025 finances:

The financial condition of OpenAI is deeply concerning. $38.53 billion in losses are astronomical, and far higher than most believed it would be. Losses also appear to be mounting year-over-year at a dramatic rate, and I’m not sure how this company finds a way toward any kind of sustainability or profitability.

148
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by bignose@awful.systems to c/technology@lemmy.world
 

If Google only takes and never gives, then sites cannot profit. What is the incentive to publish if the only outcome is feeding Google’s AI with no return? What sources will LLMs have to pull from if all the sources are defunct? How far will Google go folding adverts into their AI output?

I can see the huge short-term gain for Google, but I see no long-term path – not even an unsustainable one. This feels like the end, but of exactly what I’m uncertain.

[–] bignose@awful.systems 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

From TFA:

So what do we search with instead of Google? There isn’t a lot of choice. There’s various flavours of Google or Bing.

[…] Kagi resells Google’s actual link results for a monthly subscription. Kagi is really an AI company that sells search as a sideline, and they’ve got a terrible AI slop news service too. But the search has a good reputation for now.

[–] bignose@awful.systems 6 points 3 months ago

I went to the landing page, expecting garbage genAI images; it did not disappoint.

 

Data privacy and AI services have not been the greatest of bedfellows. Studies have shown that employees regularly leak company secrets via assistants, and on-device AI services are a focus of vendors amid concerns about exactly what is being sent to the cloud.

The thought of confidential data being sent to an unknown location in the cloud to generate a helpful summary has clearly worried lawmakers, which is why there is a blanket ban. However, the issue has less relevance if the process occurs on the device itself.

[–] bignose@awful.systems 2 points 9 months ago

Good news every time this happens.

Even better, this blog post is a great reference of the many reasons GitHub is shitty, becoming shittier, and everyone should abandon that platform.

[–] bignose@awful.systems 5 points 9 months ago

GEMA versus OpenAI. Whoever wins, we all lose.

But I'm still happy to see them fight.

view more: next ›