Yes, the GDPR covers almost everything you do with personal data. That is the point. As long as you’re being respectful to data subjects the GDPR is surprisingly mild.

You’re the one claiming the government is regulating tech too much, below an article about Apple making that same claim. And when pressed about specifics, you brand the entire thing as off-topic.

It is very much on topic, you just don’t want to provide an argument.

What is wrong with the GDPR and the ePrivacy directive? The only problem I see is that they don’t go far enough (online tracking, for example)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/joke

MS Paint isn’t marketed or treated as a source of truth. LLMs are.

Breaking an NDA (allegedly) is civil, not criminal

That’s the thing: if he went by Womble at work then that was his name. The fact that the government called him Raymond doesn’t make that his only name, they are both valid.

Fun fact, you can use whatever names you want. All names are made up. Your “legal name” is just what the government calls you, but you can ask other people to call you something else entirely. The same goes with pronouns.

He knows that peacefully voting is the only way to bring down the fascist Trojans.

Not disappear entirely, but most households won’t own desktop computers or HDDs.

I can fix her

It’s saying the quiet part out loud. Surely anyone who sees this will be outraged?

If you prefer instant gratification and “good enough” over robust, verifiable information: be my guest. But it doesn’t make you superior. You are not unique, skilled or brave for using LLMs.

I think virtually everyone here has played with them. We’ve all seen better and worse outputs. You are not unique, you just care less about truth and accuracy.

So since we have to manually verify everything anyway, the LLM just becomes a mere search engine.

This contradicts the entire point you claimed it was useful in the first place because we would still have to visit those websites.

The first gamer pope 😎

Don’t worry, DOGE will just fire the investigators before that happens.

Nerve gas also doesn’t have morals. It just kills people in a horrible way. Does that mean that we shouldn’t study their effects or debate whether they should be used?

At least when you drop a bomb there is no doubt about your intent to kill. But if you use a chatbot to defraud consumers, you have plausible deniability.

That was only my first point. In my second and third point I explained why education is not going to solve this problem. That’s like poisoning their candy and then educating them about it.

I’ll add to say that these AI applications only work because people trust their output. If everyone saw them for the cheap party tricks that they are, they wouldn’t be used in the first place.

The fact that they lack sentience or intentions doesn’t change the fact that the output is false and deceptive. When I’m being defrauded, I don’t care if the perpetrator hides behind an LLM or not.

It’s rather difficult to get people who are willing to lie and commit fraud for you. And even if you do, it will leave evidence.

As this article shows, AIs are the ideal mob henchmen because they will do the most heinous stuff while creating plausible deniability for their tech bro boss. So no, AI is not “just like most people”.

Ok, so your point is that people who interact with these AI systems will know that it can’t be trusted and that will alleviate the negative consequences of its misinformation.

The problems with that argument are many:

• The vast majority of people are not AI experts and do in fact have a lot of trust in such systems

• Even people who do know often have no other choice. You don’t get to talk to a human, it’s this chatbot or nothing. And that’s assuming the AI slop is even labelled as such.

• Even knowing that the information can be misleading does not help much. If you sell me a bowl of candy and tell me that 10% of them are poisoned, I’m still going to demand non-poisoned candy. The fact that people can no longer rely on accurate information should be unacceptable.