This is a dumbass article.

First, it self-evidently doesn't understand what the laws of robotics actually are and how they interrelate. You can't just tack on an unrelated fourth one - the current three are a mutually dependent set.

And second, it self-evidently doesn't understand that current "AI" isn't actually intelligence in any way, shape or form and possesses no self-awareness of any form, and therefore cannot be made subject to laws at all.

Laws can only meaningfully be applied to the people who use the current "AIs," since they're the ones who actually possess agency and self-awareness.

If you want to argue for something to stem the tide of deepfakes, that's the thing to argue for - straightforward criminal penalties for the people who employ "AIs" to make them.

Discworld, no contest.

Waaah! Wikipedia won't let people include lies! They're censoring the right!

such as failure to address foreign influence operations.

lol

When historical analyses are written of the era in which a raving lunatic with orange makeup and a bad combover conned millions of gung-ho pro-American credulous morons on the right into supporting him as he brazenly destroyed everything that ever made America great, much attention is going to be paid specifically to his penchant for projection.

Republicans are primed to believe misinformation, since much of their ideology is founded on it.

That's also the reason that they take issue with Wikipedia, much of the mainstream media, universities and most forums - because in an environment in which truth matters and falsehood is generally exposed and/or stifled, they necessarily see and can repeat fewer of the comforting lies that form the basis for their ideology.

In fact the central pillar of conservatism is inevitably a lie - they wish to maintain some present or recreate some past that does not and never did actuslly exist. Then they just pile on the lies from there.

So necessarily, already, all that's relevant to them is whether or not a claim fits into the web of lies they already believe. So all anyone so inclined has to do is present them with something that fits with the lies they already believe, and they'll not only believe it, but accuse anyone who treats it as a lie of trying to censor them.

And present it with enough all-caps EMPHASIS and EXCLAMATION POINTS that they KNOW that it's the TRUTH!!

He probably meant to.

Broadly, yeah. I suspect that more or less what it boils down to is that the US, even before Trump, was and is so warped by greed and corruption and built around so many lies that it's effectively insane, and that's reflected in its political leadership.

This is the thing that most astonishes me about this timeline.

Even setting aside all the other issues - politics, ideology, constitutionality, the rule of law, integrity, whatever - Trump is so obviously a raving lunatic that I sincerely have no idea how anyone can possibly fail to see it. There's nothing at all aubtle or obscure about it - he's bludgeoningly obviously unhinged.

Do people actually not see that? How? Or do they see it and ignore it? Again, how?

if people are not taught media ecology and the menace of unreality / alternate reality thinking.

At least this is an improvement on condemning them for not automaticallyvalready knowing what it is or how to deal with it.

But you're srill neatly avoiding mention of the individual actors who are responsible for the social conditions in whic this menace thrives.

Confident, contented people don't buy snake oil - only unhappy, frightened, desperate people do.

So you're not faulting the overt and deliberate destruction of American integrity, liberty, democracy and justice, but the responses to that deliberate destruction?

So essentially victim-blaming on a national scale?

Imagine that - an office dedicated to countering foreign disinformation somehow ends up being accused of censoring conservative views.

That reminds me of when I saw a mouse in my kitchen, so I set a trap snd caught it, snd somehow that also stopped the ragged holes that were inexplicably appearing in food packages in the cupboards.

Just one of life's mysteries I guess...

Sorry Mike, but one of the good things that's come out of the internet is that it's made people far more aware of just how much of the value their labor creates goes to paying for the privileged lives of worthless shitheels like you.

A notable intrinsic dodge bonus.

Decent but not great healing, blessing, persuasion, rally, calm, etc.

More or less neitral disposition with virtually everyone, save only the most extreme pro- or anti-religious.

Surprisingly good hand-to-hand combat, but only under duress and/or drunk.

I don't disagree.

Still though, compared to Needing/Getting or Here It Goes Again or The One Moment or I Won't Let You Down...

I'm not trying to put down the video or anything - it's just that it struck me watching it that OK Go have sort of painted themselves into a corner. They've put out so many jaw-droppingly awesome videos that at this point, anything less than jaw-droppingly awesome is almost a disappointment.

It strikes me that they've spoiled us. If I had never seen another OK Go video, I would likely be very impressed by that, but by their standards, it was only pretty good.

yUgh. That sounds even worse. You have my sympathy.

It's a weird thing about this era. In the past, I would've tried to argue with them about their views, but at this point, it's effectively impossible, since we don't even share a reality. They live in a world in which, for instance, Kamala Harris is a DEI hire who got appointed as the candidate by Biden, who' in turn is still working for the Obamas, and she lost because she's a socialist.

Where do you even start with something like that?

If only Congress had a few more people with his integrity and courage and commitment.

I have two brothers who are variations on the theme.

I'm the oldest and middle brother is a longtime conspiracy theorist who's on the anti-vaxx, deep state fringe (and at least pleasantly is notably not a bigot) and youngest is an IT guy and a stock,,-standard tech "libertarian" who rages about wokeism and free speech and idolizes Musk and is about every kind of bigot imaginable.

So I spend holidays mostly hiding in the study, surfing the web and trying to ignore the bits of mansplained propaganda wafting down the hall...

Probably.

Years ago, I was actually opposed to it myself (it was generally considered under the umbrella of Affirmative Action then) mostly because I saw it as a species of tokenism - a way to create the illusion of inclusion and diversity without the spirit of the thing.

But then I was confronted with a very compelling argument that basically held that it should be supported regardless of potential flaws because its long-term merits would oitweigh those flaws - it would condition people to see minorities in the workplace, and even in positions of power, as a common and unremarkable thing, and it would allow for new generations who would grow up already in that world because of their parents 'employment. Effectively, it wasn't for the current generations, for whom it would necessarily be at least somewhat problematic, but for future generations.

That's been my position ever since.

Somewhere along the way though - about the same time that "woke" became a pejorative, I started seeing a new rush of opposition to what was now known as DEI.

And the thing is that I never once saw a considered argument against it. All I saw was the new generation of overt racists - the people who fed exclusively on /pol/ and stormfront and AM talk radio and white supremacist podcasts - sneeringly referring to every minority in any notable position as a "DEI hire."

But yes - maybe those who oppose it sincerely and with good intentions are out there and I just don't see them.

I actually paused over that one myself, but while it is technically possible that someone could oppose DEI with the best of intentions, with the sincere belief that it's an ineffective or even counter-productive strategy, I just think it's orders of magnitude more likely that they oppose it because they're racist filth.

But yeah - that's one that I'd likely want to follow up on before a final decision.