queermunist she/her

Courts generally agree that a reasonable person could believe claims made in official promotional material. That’s why it’s not legal to outright lie in marketing and they need to go through so much trouble to properly word their statements so that they’re technically true. In this case, they’re just lying. They’re saying the AI is safe to use for these tasks and it is not.

More a problem with the marketing, right? Imagine if guns were marketed as safe and helpful back scratchers, and then someone shoots themselves because they used the gun to scratch their back.

Good thing we just started a war to paralyze global energy markets. That’ll help!

I usually use my memory when I want to look back on my entire day and know what I did.

We already outsource parenting to the government when we send our kids to public school. We send children to complete strangers to be educated because we don’t have time to do it ourselves.

Are you opposed to school too?

Holding parents accountable for what they allow their children to be exposed to would, in fact, reduce the number of children being exposed to harmful things. The question is, do we focus on the punishment side or the prevention side? On the punishment side we find the parents that let their children watch idk ISIS gore videos and imprison them. On the prevention side we force parents to install parental control software, like mandating locks on gun safes if there are children in the home.

What is to be done about parents who do not give a shit about what their children are exposed to on the internet?

They’re not technologically illiterate. They’re neglectful shitheads.

Do we mandate adult controls on machines and punish the parents that don’t use them? Because that’s actually not all that different from age verification laws.

The hole is in the middle of a parking lot because the chatbot hallucinated the job order.

That’s still embodied energy, so the question becomes; “How much energy does it take to actually make these materials?”

In particular, the device is packed with Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs), which are synthetic porous materials engineered at the molecular level to have huge surface areas. A few grams of an MOF can have a surface area equivalent to a football arena, according to the source.

That sounds pretty energy-intensive to me.

You aren’t asking a big enough question to actually grasp what the lesser evil even is.

The first question you really want to ask is “what is the primary contradiction?” We can discuss what that might be, US hegemony or Western imperialism or neocolonialism, but this will inform our understanding of how we should vote. Only once we identify the primary contradiction should we cast our votes in whatever way will advance the struggle against it.

Let’s say we identify US hegemony as the primary contradiction. Does voting for Harris help advance the struggle against US hegemony? No! She would have been a fine steward of the empire, if she was president the hegemon would be in better shape than it is under Trump and the struggle against it would be even harder.

Trump is wrecking the empire, and in light of this, Trump winning is actually a lesser evil. What we see under Trump is the US pulling back from all of its soft-power while threatening its own allies. Yes, it has become more violent, but the violence isn’t a sign of strength. The US is in a weaker position than it has ever been in my life. All is chaos under heaven, the situation is excellent.

But, if Trump winning was the lesser evil, does that mean we vote for Trump? Also no! It’s important for him to not actually ever be popular within the US, because that also erodes his own legitimacy among the US population and makes the US itself harder to govern. The fact that he “won” with 49.9% of the vote isn’t the best outcome, better would be losing the popular vote again, but it’s still good because forcing USAmericans to confront the weakness of their elections also weakens its position as the hegemon. They look at their own elections, look at Trump winning twice without ever getting a majority, and ask “do we live in a democracy?”

(The answer is no by the way.)

His unpopularity is why there was an uprising against ICE in Minnesota. There wouldn’t even be protests against ICE if Harris was president, and there weren’t under Biden despite him deporting more than Trump in his first term, but under Trump people can easily see what they have always been: colonial occupation troops. Under Democrats the streets are empty, under Trump the people fight back. The BLM uprisings happened under Trump, but it was Bill Clinton that gave us the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to fill the prisons with Black people. This has to be factored in when we ask what the lesser evil is.

They’re both great evils, so identifying the primary contradiction is the only way we can identify what is to be done.

Notably, this is not accelerationism. The goal here isn’t to make things worse so they get better. The goal is to make the US empire weaker, because we have identified US hegemony as the primary contradiction and that’s what we are struggling against. Revolutionary defeatism, in other words.

I’m against the LLM bubble. They’re gobbling up all of our compute, electricity, water, and basically all investment capital while not even generating productivity gains or improving anyone’s lives. Internet search is now dead, all my fan communities are just full of slop instead of art from artists, and the piggies that own the data centers are destroying all culture to feed their autocomplete machines. LLMs have accelerated the decay of civilization in a way that we might struggle to recover from when the bubble pops. Half the time it’s not even AI, the real work is just outsourced to some superexploited workers in the Global South.

There are some legitimate use-cases for LLM technology, but the way they’re trying to cram it into everything is actually just wrecking everything. It seems like they’re destroying the world for a worse calculator that can pretend to be your girlfriend.

Fuck McDonald’s too tbh

Doing any business with or in Israel is being materially tied to Israel.

Let’s be more specific.

Anything that gives money, power, or influence to Israel is never a good thing. They need to be boycotted at all levels.

🎵 It should also be noted a bottle of it was found
In the clenched dead hand of the white John Brown
Everytime it went 'round new people would find it
They would take their essence, put it in and grind it
In Russia, Africa, Asia too
Mao Tse-Tung made the flavors new 🎶

Ask me how I know you’ve never seen an argument about Russia.

If surveillance does not seem to affect their daily lives then they are not bound by the law. They’re simply protected. They have nothing to fear because the government’s terror regime is not directed against them, they simply benefit from the security it provides them. You can not argue against them, they are simply conscious of their own material interests.

Privacy is only valuable if the government is a hostile force, but they have never experienced government hostility. They’re protected. They’re not the ones being dragged out of their houses by screaming masked men or put to work in prisons. They’re fine.

There are a lot of people on those apps who mostly are protected by the law. They’re not, like, Epstein clients or anything but their interactions with law enforcement often involve being pulled over and then let off with a warning, whereas someone else would be dragged out of their car and beaten half to death.

Also, never underestimate how many of them are bots.

There are two kinds of people. There are people that the law protects but does not bind, and there are other people that law binds but does not protect. These two classes are in conflict with each other and this can’t be overcome with words.

If they are someone that the law binds then they’ll either immediately understand what I mean when I say “the government is run by terrorists” or they’ll find out when they’re terrorized by the government. Law is class power, the terrorism is self-evident.

If they are someone that the law protects, then they’ll have no idea what I’m talking about and there’s literally nothing I could say or do that would convince them. They materially benefit from the government’s terrorism, it’s in their interests to support it.

That argument falls flat when the government is run by terrorists.