Just let the AI control my mouse and keyboard, let it use my device like a human. There's a huge swath of software already designed to be used by humans and anyone who uses ChatGPT knows that it's already been trained on every scrap of knowledge on how to use any existing complex software.
I see this as a great thing. Venture Capital has been way too focused on software for a long time. It’s time for the money in tech to start flowing to other things like hardware, biotech, etc. we’ve seen this start happening for a little while already with companies like Anduril, but hopefully it will continue accelerating because of this.
The left did this in the previous admin with Parler. This has been going on for a long time and Apple will not face any repercussions because it is abused by both sides of the political aisle.
We all voted for this, we are getting what we voted for. Why would we try to stop it?
ICE is scanning public info anyway, nothing they’re doing is illegal or even new. Many parts of the federal government are already scanning social media, like the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
> Willing to work for less than an American, but somehow doesn’t drive wages down for Americans.
Yeah, they obviously do. That's plain bullshit.
.... ooooon the other hand, we've never tried having an economy without them. We didn't meaningfully limit migration from elsewhere in the Americas until like the '50s, and at the time beginning such enforcement was controversial because we already used them for a ton of cheap farm labor and farmers' interest groups thought it'd ruin them if we significantly limited such migration. The reason their fears didn't manifest as reality is that we simply, and at least in part on purpose, never bothered to enforce those new laws as completely as we technically could, especially for farm labor.
So like they do lower wages (again: obviously) but also they always have, so removing them is a big change from the status quo of practically the entire history of the country's economy. I dunno, worth looking at I guess, but I personally would want to ease into it in case it turns out to be a bad idea.
> Lives in American housing yet somehow doesn’t drive up the cost of housing.
I think the cheap-labor effect on construction probably outweighs this by a good margin. But maybe not.
> Creates ethnic enclaves which mostly speak their own languages yet somehow assimilate into American culture.
Eh. That complaint has been leveled against every prior migrant group, and hasn't held up over the long haul. Even prior waves of hispanic immigrants. I'd need a reason to think it's different this time to give this any credence whatsoever.
Well heck, I see an awful lot of people on the internet trying to argue that they somehow don’t drive wages down for Americans. The number of foreign born people living in the USA is at an all time high, over 5 times larger than what it was in the middle of the last century. Being able to throw cheap labor at a problem is a crutch that keeps people from having to innovate or pay their own countrymen a decent wage. The same argument was used by pro-slavery folks back in the day. “Who will pick the cotton?” was seen as a compelling argument. But when your business is forced to deal with a problem instead of throwing cheap labor at it, you often come up with much better ways to do things and your own fellow citizens share the benefits as well.
>cheap-labor effect on construction probably outweighs this by a good margin
The data shows clearly that immigrants drive up the cost of housing by increasing demand. Americans built our own housing for most of our history, this trend of cheap immigrant labor working most of the construction jobs was not always the case. We could afford to pay construction workers a little bit more and the cost of housing would be more than offset by the reduced housing demand.
>hasn't held up over the long haul
It has absolutely held up, take a trip to any major US city and visit one of its many ethnic enclaves. Many areas of Los Angeles speak exclusively Spanish, you can visit neighborhoods that are indistinguishable from a city in Mexico. The problem is so glaring that the left has switched tactics and hardly even argues that assimilation occurs anymore, rather they argue that “multiculturalism” is the new thing we are supposed to support. Where ethnic enclaves live alongside each other.
Well, entire areas of Los Angeles speaking Spanish seems to be quite normal considering the history of the state? It's like complaining that people in Chinatown speak Chinese.
With the right sorts of access given by companies seeking to avoid the ire of the administration, I'm pretty sure even private profiles could be considered to be public.
>I'm pretty sure even private profiles could be considered to be public.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that this is happening, the article itself talks about public posts.
It’s well established that if you post evidence of a crime publicly on social media the government will find it and use it. Illegal immigration is a crime by definition, using public information to find people who committed this crime is not the same as reading private mail.
Agreed that there's no evidence that's happening yet -- but I don't think that the median Discord user understands their discord posts to be public in the same way that an X user would.
Using taxpayer money to pay for healthcare for illegal immigrants is also a self-destructive act. China isn’t funding healthcare for illegal immigrants either, for good reason.
> returning back to Detroit this morning after the republicans failed to show up in the US house. We got to make sure Americans have the healthcare that they need, and if that means we've got to shut this government down than so be it.
Not sure where you are getting the illegal immigrants stuff from.
And both sides have the power to avoid the shut down by coming to an agreement with the other side.
If democrats are intentionally shutting down the government to keep healthcare for Americans, republicans are equally as intentionally shutting down the government down to oppose healthcare for Americans.
Why is the democrats fault and not the fault of the republicans who voted against the budget? They could have prevented the shutdown all by themselves.
Could you please not post in the flamewar style to HN? You broke the site guidelines badly here, and we've had to warn you about this more than once in the past.
Well if you apply the approach used for nuclear to AI the result would be invasive and authoritarian. The United States largely polices other countries nuclear efforts, at least in its sphere of influence. If we allowed it to police computation in the same way it polices nuclear, the result would be a massive invasion of privacy and autonomy that would result in a system which would be easily abused.
There are people talking seriously about drone striking data centers which are running unapproved AI models.
well i'd suggest most countries are already regulating AI and will continue to do that with existing laws that protect privacy, the environment, worker safety, limit hate speech, etc. some of those regulations extend beyond national boundaries, like GDPR, etc. in the EU.
I think the fearmongering around AI may be overblown by its investors and promoters, but to the extent that some models may morph what it means for a country to be militarily secure, there's no reason why diplomacy, negotiation and de-escalation won't be the same powerful tools they often have been in the very human drive to mitigate the risk of conflict ...
You underestimate how much seeing a sitting president be deplatformed affected the voting public. It wasn’t just Musk, all this talk of “deplatforming” people on the right was an obviously clear erosion of free speech that pushed many moderates like myself rightward.
It wasn’t just banning Trump either, tbh one of the biggest ones was the banning of the Babylon Bee for a pretty tame joke. There’s a long list of other right-leaning accounts which were banned during that time as well.
I mean, who knows how well Trump would have done had he not been re-admitted to Twitter. It's a counter-factual. For what it's worth, I'm not advocating de-platforming right-wing voices. I just think there's an argument to be made that social media platforms have a responsibility to mitigate misinformation and incitements to violence. It should be done in a transparent and impartial manner. There are high-profile right-wing accounts that spread a lot of misinformation trying to whip up a frenzy. In the UK, Musk's un-banning brought accounts like Katie Hopkins, Andrew Tate, and Tommy Robinson back online, a consequence of which was a series of violent riots last summer fuelled by false claims and Islamophobia. I hear people arguing that as long as anyone can share their ideas, then the truth will bubble to the top. Well, that's not how it's playing out.
Having private companies try and label things themselves which are misinformation or incitements to violence is a slippery slope which has never worked well in practice. As soon as you have a person in a company who's job it is to decide whether something is misinformation or not they immediately will apply their own personal biases.
The approach of allowing everything that is _legal_ to say is much better. If it is allowed by a court of law then companies should not be trying to apply their own additional filters. It can be downranked in the algorithm but at least allowing legal speech is important.
Even just looking at your statement, lumping Andrew Tate in with Tommy Robinson is a completely subjective thing, they are two wildly different people. Everything Tommy Robinson has said is true, he regularly states that he doesn’t care about race, he rejects white supremacists, and has a movement filled with peaceful normal Brits. Nothing he says or does is violent or illegal, his claims about Pakistani rape gangs are supported by evidence and first hand testimony. And more generally: not wanting to become a hated minority in your own country is not an extremist position. It doesn’t mean you hate others for their skin color or whatever type of “phobic” label you care to apply. People vote repeatedly for a government to stop the boats and every government that gets elected decides not to try for some mysterious reason, people are justifiably angry that their elected officials are doing the opposite of what they voted for.
Andrew Tate is yes of course a controversial dumb guy who does say things which are pretty out there, but the principle of allowing him to say everything which is legal in a court of law is important. Most normal people recognize that he’s outside the Overton window on many topics and it’s generally easy to counter his speech with better speech. But lumping crazies like Tate in with legitimate people like Robinson is a common tactic to delegitimize the people you disagree with.
Yes the guy who was sent to jail for saying words that the government didn’t like. He was further persecuted for making a film about it as well. Put in solitary confinement for nothing other than _saying words_.
He is completely correct about Pakistani rape gangs, the growth of Sharia courts and laws in the UK, and growing violence against the native British.
Side note: the UK government fines and jails more people for speech than most authoritarian dictatorships, including Russia.
Robinson was explicitly jailed for making libellous accusations. He invented claims that the refugee had bullied other kids, supplemented by unrelated photos that he stole. He admitted it was all fake, but then repeated the claims in a film. This is all clearly documented.
A 15 year old refugee boy had been assaulted, had water forced into his mouth, had had his arm broken, his sister had been assaulted. He's now terrified of going back to the school because of the hate that Robinson has filled other kids' heads with. Robinson's behaviour was utterly shameful, and it's shameful that you defend him in this instance.
> the UK government fines and jails more people for speech than most authoritarian dictatorships
“Making libelous accusations” = “saying words you don’t agree with”
“A photo he stole” - didn’t he just repost something he found on TikTok? How is that stealing?
Again all these things you say he did amount to him saying things you don’t like. He didn’t commit any violence or hurt anyone, just said words. You are trying to justify locking people up for saying things and that is what real authoritarian government looks like.
>Approximately 12,000 people are arrested annually in the UK for offensive online messages
>In 2023, specifically 12,183 people were arrested for sending or posting offensive messages on social media [3]
>Police are making around 30 arrests per day for offensive online messages [1]
>The trend shows significant increases: arrests have risen by 121% since 2017 [1] and by almost 58% since before the pandemic
