It's the user's fault. They vote for this crap with their attention. Junk sites like this shouldn't exist but they do amd aren't going anywhere until people stop using them.
Some users might enable these kind of features with their attention, but I don't think users actually want these features and any kind of "voting" is likely unintentional. It's manipulation. The fault lies mainly with the company and their carefully planned dark patterns. Ideally, users should punish them by e.g. leaving the platform but there's friction that may be a bigger problem than the dark patterns (depending on user). And I don't think there are any platforms that always guarantee good user experience now and in the future.
Not sure if users even realize what the dark patterns are and do. Users aren't all-knowing, with endless time, carefully balancing their attention to try to provide markets with the optimal signal to wisely guide the misbehaving actors.
Is it really the users fault when the apps are literally designed by neuroscientists that explicitly design it to be addictive toward humans all of which is being funded by monopolists companies whose leadership tend to have antidemocratic views about humanity?
Maybe we should finally regulate these addict boxes as the dangerous substances they are.
Users are not perfect agents. How can you expect the average non-technical person to figure out what is happening? For most people, if they don't see visually see something happening on the screen, it doesn't exist. They simply have no frame of reference to figure out that LinkedIN is hijacking their scroll speed.
Yeah but we can see right through all that lawyer bullshit right? Gambling markets like polymarket are morally corrupt and we having given them too much space in our society already.
That particular part isn't lawyer bullshit. They're beta testing a completely separate system that runs under US regulations. It looks like it'll be legal in a non-bullshit way.
Moral issues are a different topic, and weak geoblocking on the international version is another different topic.
I actually don't hate this??? As long as parents can set up their own whitelists and it's not up to the government to have the final say on any particular block.
The problem of "kids accessing the Internet" is a purposeful distraction from the intent of these laws, which is population-level surveillance and Verified Ad Impressions.
Today, in practice it's not a choice, because even the most attentive parents fail to block internet access. Parental controls are ineffective, and all the kid's friends have access so they become alienated. https://beasthacker.com/til/parental-controls-arent-for-pare...
But laws alone won't fix this, and laws aren't necessary (except maybe a law that prevents kids from buying phones). In the article, the child's devices had parental controls, but they were ineffective. There's demand for a phone with better parental controls, so it will come, and more parents are denying access, so their kids will become less alienated.
This reminds me a bit of a recent publication by Stroustrup about using concepts... in C++ to validate integer conversions automatically where necessary.
{
Number<unsigned int> ii = 0;
Number<char> cc = '0';
ii = 2; // OK
ii = -2; // throws
cc = i; // OK if i is within cc’s range
cc = -17; // OK if char is signed; otherwise throws
cc = 1234; // throws if a char is 8 bits
}
I hate that it's true, but things like this make outputs night-and-day for me. This is the difference e.g. of a model writing appropriate test harnesses, or pushing back on requirements, vs writing the most absolute horrible code and test/dependency injection I've ever seen in pursuit of the listed goals.
Similar to adjacent commentors I've tried to be better at enumerating what I consider to be best practice, but I couldn't argue in good faith that instructions like these produce no noticible improvment.
(As with all things AI, it could all be percepion on my end, so YMMV, wish there was a better way to concretely evaluate effects on outcomes of different rule sets / instructions / ...)
This is some absolute BS. In the current day and age you are 1000% responsible for the externalities of your use of AI.
Read the terms and conditions of your model provider. The document you signed, regardless if you read or considered it, explicitly removes any negative consequences being passed to the AI provider.
Unless you have something equally as explicit, e.g. "we do not guarantee any particular outcome from the use of our service" (probably needs to be significantly more explicitly than that, IANAL) all responsibility ends up with the entity who itself, or it's agents, foists unreliable AI decisions on downstream users.
Remember, you SIGNED THE AGGREMENT with the AI company the explicitly says it's outputs are unreliable!!
And if you DO have some watertight T&C that absolves you of any responsibility of your AI-backed-service, then I hope either a) your users explicitly realize what they are signing up for, or b) once a user is significantly burned by your service, and you try to hide behind this excuse, you lose all your business
One in which you sell yourself into slavery, for example, would be illegal in the US.
All those "we take no responsibility for the [valet parking|rocks falling off our truck|exploding bottles]" disclaimers are largely attempts to dissuade people from trying.
So I can pass on contact breaches due to bugs in software I maintain due to hallucinations by the AI that I used to write the software?? Absolutely no way.
"But the AI wrote the bug."
Who cares? It could be you, your relative, your boss, your underling, your counterpart in India, ... Your company provided some reasonable guarantee of service (whether explitly enumerated in a contact or not) and you cannot just blindly pass the buck.
Sure, after you've settled your claim with the user, maybe TRY to go after the upstream provider, but good luck.
(Extreme example) -- If your company produces a pacemaker dependent on AWS/GCP/... and everyone dies as soon as cloudflare has a routing outage that cascades to your provider, oh boy YOU are fucked, not cloudflare or your hosting provider.
IMO humans commonly mix-up the separable concepts of guilt, blame, and responsibility, treating them almost like synonyms. That can make some discussions difficult.
The point of signing contracts is you explicitly set expectations for service, and explicitly assign liability. You can't just reverse that and try to pass the blame.
Sure, if someone from GCP shows up at your business and breaks your leg or burns down your building, you can go after them, as it's outside the reasonable expectation of the business agreement you signed.
But you better believe they will never be legally responsible for damages caused by outages of their service beyond what is reasonable, and you better believe "reasonable outage" in this case is explicitly enumerated in the contact you or your company explicitly agreed to.
Sure they might give you free credits for the outage, but that's just to stop you from switching to a competitor, not any explicit acknowledgement they are on the hook for your lost business opportunity.
> The point of signing contacts is you explicitly set expectations for servkce, and explicitly assign liability.
Sure, but not all liability can be reassigned; I linked a concrete example of this.
> But you better believe they will never be legally responsible for damages caused by outages of their service beyond what is reasonable, and you better believe "reasonable outage" in this case is explicitly enumerated in the contact you or your company explicitly agreed to.
Yes, on this we agree. It'd have to be something egregious enough to amount to intentional negligence.
Appointments are a whole other issue (see the extreme turnover in the American executive branch every 4 years). Id rather the head of my local police dept be significantly supported by the populating instead of an appointment from a governor, mayor, ... whose entire schtick can change on a dime.
Independent elections are a good thing. Bundling offices together under a single election that appoints the rest of the world is terrible and only leans further into the two party see-saw that exists in the USA.
I really wish for proportional representation. Not that it really applies to your local police force, but we need to break apart the complete A-or-B nature of American politics. Form coalitions, not monoliths that trade off earning 51% of the electorate every cycle that the completely repoints the entirety of the govt for the next 4 years.
Did you even read the article or review the story? The police showed up, reviewed and even verified their documents (called the numbers on the form to confirm their authorization) and we're seemingly satisfied all was in order.
Only once the sheriff himself arrived on scene did he order the arrest that caused all the issues. If that didn't happen it wouldn't have been a story other than "security professionals doing their authorized job".
> Another reason for doubt: one of the people listed as a contact on the get-out-of-jail-free letter didn’t answer the deputies’ calls, while another said he didn’t believe the men had permission to conduct physical intrusions.
It's actually kind of amazing that the police first let them go after the official contact on the form said they were not authorized to intrude in the building.
