From the OP, it seems the filters don't flag CSAM. They flag any NSFW. That said, keep in mind that the filter would also have false negatives, so if people want to slip NSFW though, they might be able to do it through the filter even without such option.
But I don't mind the content staying hidden until a mod reviewed is in such cases. The false positive rate of the filter would likely be small, so there wouldn't be too many things that need review.
A way to deal with false positives of an ML NSFW scanner would be: Once per day, each user can "overwrite" the scanner. If a user is caught abusing this, they get banned.
Yes, I know about the exploitation that happened during early industrialization, and it was horrible. But if people had just rejected and banned factories back then, we'd still be living in feudalism.
I know that I don't want to work a job that can be easily automated, but intentionally isn't just so I can "have a purpose".
What will happen if AI were to automate all jobs? In the most extreme case, where literally everyone lost their job, then nobody would be able to buy stuff, but also, no company would be able to sell products and make profit. Then, either capitalism would collapse - or more likely, it will adapt by implementing some mechanism such as UBI. Of course, the real effect of AI will not be quite that extreme, but it may well destabilize things.
That said, if you want to change the system, it's exactly in periods of instability that can be done. So I'm not going to try to stop progress and cling to the status quo out of fear what those changes might be - and instead join a movement that tries to shape them.
we should at least regulate the tech.
Maybe. But generally on Lemmy I see sooo many articles about "Oh, no, AI bad". But no good suggestions on what exactly regulations should we want.
I think you misread the OP.
Electronic voting, maybe? But for most cases a transparently ran centralized ledger should work better.
I don't see how blockchain (in this case) adds any value over a federation like Matrix.
Then there's CC BY-NC-SA (non-commercial use only, copyleft)and
You could have said the same for factories in the 18th century. But instead of the reactionary sentiment to just reject the new, we should be pushing for ways to have it work for everyone.
Not exactly. For example, you can't make the whole thing, GPL snippet included, available under MIT. You can only license your own contribution however you want (in addition to GPL).
That seems a somewhat contrived example. Yes, it can theoretically happen - but in practice it would happen with a library, and most libraries are LGPL (or more permissive) anyway. By contrast, there have been plenty of stories lately of people who wrote MIT/BSD software, and then got upset when companies just took the code to add in their products, without offering much support in return.
Also, there's a certain irony in saying what essentially amounts to, "Please license your code more permissively, because I want to license mine more restrictively".
This isn’t a well-controlled comparison.
It is. If you're going to virtualize a board game, there's no need to stick to the limitation of a physical board game. So, once you make full use of the virtual environment, you get a video game. If you compare to just virtualized board games, then you're artificially disadvantaging the virtual side.
PS. I also added this significant edit to my last post (bad form for discussion, but it makes more sense there than here)
I think the point of the article is to show that the CEOs empty words are empty
Maybe. To me it read more like: "According to Zoom's CEO, Zoom can't fully replace in-person interaction for work. Therefore, it's bad/useless software - or the CEO is bullshitting." Which is just bad reasoning. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Maybe I'm just taking it too literally, but I just don't like when articles use such bad reasoning, even if I agree with their conclusion.
Actually, reporting issues is not considered a bad practice in open source. If the corporation expects the dev to work for free, that's a problem. But I found the original bug report, and it's just a normal report. It doesn't read entitled, doesn't demand "Fix it NOW!!!", simply explains an issue.