Are you saying they are adapting them in a kind of cultural adaptation to the ChatGPT outputs, or are you implying the higher likelihood that they sees simply unquestioningly posting/sending AI outputs?
It's the latter. Soo many "official" company communication is "a clown told the AI clown to generate something about the topic". Not even editing anything, just copy paste
So turn back the clock to when Hildegard von Bingen was only one of many extremely powerful and influential abbesses that were polymaths and prolific artists and writers and educators of women in Europe?
I’ve never understood this mentality that people who read and watched handmaids tale, caused some done kind of weird obsession built on a literal fiction story, a made up story… especially since the reality is not only the polar opposite, but in no place on the planet have things ever been better for any people relative to all other places of their time than in the very European societies and cultures that you types are so suicidally fixated on being destructive of.
The irony of the handmaids tale types from my experience is that they/you are, in their/your suicidally manic self-harming obsession, advocates for the spread of Islam in the very western countries that have provided all of humanity all of its freedoms and comforts, which would ironically will lead to an actual handmaids tale type scenario you constantly warn of.
Have you ever heard of what the Ottoman Empire did? It makes the handmaids tale sound like a wholesome family dynamic.
It's laughable to paint Islam as the enemy of Western liberty when it is masked agents of a Christian nationalist regime who are terrorizing the streets of my city and cities across the US.
> So turn back the clock to when Hildegard von Bingen was only one of many extremely powerful and influential abbesses that were polymaths and prolific artists and writers and educators of women in Europe?
Who were the other female composers of her generation?
> polymaths and prolific artists and writers and educators
to composers. Even the male composers of whom we know the names are few and sparsely attributed. Just look at the Notre Dame school and how little we know except two names with no attached biography and some beautiful music. And even only that by 'lucky accident' since a single, anonymous student wrote them down.
You'll definitely find abbesses like Herrad von Landsberg who did write and educate in her generation.
It's like, a metaphor man. A work of fiction. Not to be taken literally, yet conveys themes and ideas which can become a short hand for conveying these ideas. Tons of folks read Atlas Shrugged and thought "hey this is how the world actually is" too. Or worse, The Fountainhead. Shudder.
forget 300 year old trees... the Californians cut down sequoia trees that were probably up to 6000 years old. The oldest current one alive is estimated to be only 3200 years old.
On a scale of atrocities humans have committed, I can't really think of anything that is more atrocious than the felling of those sequoias that were at the very least as old as the oldest known human civilization. 6000+ years ... poof gone, turned into beams and furniture for houses. They've been around at least 100 Million years, but almost and possibly will not survive what is the equivalent of 0.173 seconds if you scale the 100M years to one day.
Among all the many atrocities humans have and currently are committing, things like destroying something that took 6000 years to grow seems particularly bad because there is no way to even really restore or save that, like you might be able to restore an at-risk population of animals or even revive an extinct species.
It takes about 150-200 years (we don't really know) for a sequoia to become mature, i.e., fruitful, and then it requires fire to reproduce. Let me repeat that, it absolutely requires fire to reproduce once it as matured following surviving around 175 years of human proximity, not sooner.
For our European community, it seems that the various redwoods and sequoia that were planted in Europe in the 19th century, could be coming into maturity now/soon. They are technically invasive, but at a 175 year maturity cycle, I suspect there's not much you have to worry about.
The saddest part of this is that we really have no idea just how many or the oldest redwood trees that were felled in California and on the western cost of the USA that were possibly multiple thousands of years old, i.e., 4000 years, possibly even 6000 years based on old images and accounts of trees, and that's just what we do have signals about.
Side note; there are several places in Europe where Sequoias were planted at various times and are basically infants at 150-200 years old, having been brought back to Europe by explorers and aristocrats.
So this is a sabotage agency operation? I am old enough to remember the "Arab spring" "intelligence" operation. Are people really naive about these types of Sabotage Agency supported projects and entities, regardless of the interest and curiosity about the technology?
And no, I know these things as a matter of fact for reasons that will need to remain my own.
Briar is a peer-to-peer encrypted messaging app that has received funding from multiple organizations, including the Open Technology Fund (OTF), which is financed by the U.S. government through the Agency for Global Media [1][2][3]. The OTF was established in 2012 as a program of Radio Free Asia, a U.S. government-funded nonprofit, and became independent in 2019 while continuing to receive congressional appropriations [3].
## Government Funding and Transparency
Briar openly discloses its funding sources on its website, listing support from the Open Technology Fund alongside other organizations like NLnet Foundation, the European Commission's Next Generation Internet programme, Access Now, Internews, and others [1][4]. This transparency is notable—the project does not hide its connection to U.S. government-funded initiatives. The OTF itself supports numerous widely-used internet freedom tools, with over two billion people worldwide reportedly using OTF-supported technologies daily [5].
## The Security Trade-off Question
Your skepticism about government-funded privacy tools reflects a legitimate concern that civil liberties advocates have raised [6]. However, Briar's open-source nature allows independent security audits—it was examined by Cure53 in 2017 and received positive assessments [2]. The project was developed by researchers and activists including Michael Rogers and Eleanor Saitta starting in 2011, with stated motivations around supporting freedom of expression and protecting activists and journalists [4][7].
## Technical Design vs. Political Origins
The technical architecture of Briar—peer-to-peer encryption, mesh networking capability, and operation over Tor—represents genuine attempts to resist surveillance regardless of funding sources [8]. Unlike some mesh networking apps that researchers have found vulnerable (such as Bridgefy, which had serious security flaws allowing impersonation and surveillance), Briar's design philosophy emphasizes decentralization [9]. The question becomes whether government funding necessarily compromises such tools, or whether open-source transparency and independent auditing can mitigate such concerns.
> Some countries do give journalists extra legal protection against this, but I do not know US law in this regard.
Something worth noting at least for pedantic purposes, since practice is quite different; technically speaking every person has the same rights and laws to follow as a journalist. Fundamentally, there are really no differences between a journalist and a regular person engaging in the same activities.
It's an indication of the unique system architecture that differentiates the USA from all other societies on the planet.
It has been attacked, infiltrated, poison pilled, and really rather devastated in especially the last 100 years, but it is still standing, for better or worse, whether it can be restored or it just needs to die in order to give others a chance to rebuild something improved on the core characteristics of the Constitution.
Are you really confused though or are you feigning?
The US Constitution applies to American citizens, if you are not a US citizen, you do not have the rights protected by the Constitution, which prohibit the government from infringing on those inalienable, God given rights. Maybe you should look into copying the Constitution where you are if you also want it. We encourage it.
It's like when you are a member of some club, let's say a wholesale club. If you are a member, you are allowed to enter and follow the rules of the club. If you are not a member, you do not get to do that and must leave.
You are free to create your own wholesale club with your own rules, but conflict arises when you demand or even force entry into our club illegally. That is where we have been for many decades now and security is enforcing the rules because the members of the club that have been paying are getting extremely pissed off after having had to pay for freeloaders for decades now and be abused and disrespected by them for it on top of it.
It's not hard to understand, it just seems most people are intentionally and deceptively feigning ignorance. If they are not, we have a way bigger problem that will invariably result in open conflict at some point.
If you want to free speech, I suggest you start your own free speech club wherever you are, or if you gain entry to our free speech club, you have to follow the membership rules and if it were up to me, you would have a trial period, restricted rights, and you would have to pay a freeloader rate.
These are all very reasonable things to abide by in order to keep peace, but we are now all having to learn the hard lessons of what happens when you allow bad behavior to get away with things, and you do not enforce clearly defined rules against those who even blatantly defy them and disrespect you and what you have created, and even do so in your own home. It didn't need to be like this, but it seems most humans are incapable of simply letting well enough be. It seems one of the most universal human characteristics. It applies from the personal to the government to the ideological/psychological level and it is the origin of all human conflict; you have something someone else wants and they'll end up stewing over it until they try to take it from you by hook or crook if you allow them to. The peace comes from keeping a balance. There has been no balance for as long as anyone is old and then some.
I don't have to think it, because it does not apply to them in the same way. For all intents and purposes, they are merely on a kind of probationary hiring process or maybe a probationary period, depending on how you want to look at it. Hence, why ... you know... they can't vote. Any and all privileges they enjoy, are effectively just that, privileges, just like you extend them to a guest in your home.
For further context; technically a naturalized, i.e., given citizenship can be revoked from someone that was not naturally born an American.
Them are the rules, whether you like them or not, and just for not knowing that and having that smug attitude, you should be permanently barred from entry to the USA.
Are you referring to the 5th Amendment with "No person..."? It doesn't really matter regarding my counter point, but it only highlights that you may not have fully thought through what that implies.
If the standard is as broad as a person, any person, since it is not specified what kind of person, beyond the accused one in the 5A, then you must also for consistency, believe that the Constitution applies to the whole world and all it's "persons" since the Constitution also applies to all Americans all around the world, not just on US soil.
I am not a fan of that, although I think it would have been great if other countries had adopted the Constitution, but I must presume that many others in the world would not like very much that the USA starts seeing everyone on the planet that is person as falling under its jurisdiction.
It leads us down a rather dark hallway where things like the Maduro snatching and the snatching of any other person on the planet that cannot physically prevent it under the justification that every person is subject to the USA.
You may say, "well, it only applies to "anyone on U.S. soil", but that also does not hold water since any citizen around the planet is also technically subject to and protected by American law. Do you see the conflict emerging here? And that does not even address the other huge conflict that has corrupted the Constitution and the country for the last 60 years, the birth right citizenship that was simply deliberately and maliciously misapplied and citizenship was given out to tens of millions of people in direct contradiction to democracy, the law, and justice. But that's a whole other topic.
It's interesting, because we live in very interesting times in the USA regarding these matters. We are currently experiencing what will both test whether the USA still exists, i.e., it can control it's boundaries and whether or not invasions can and are repelled, even when they simply peacefully just waltz across the border; or if the USA does not exist and definitely not in a democratic republic kind of way when anyone from anywhere in the world can simply just wander across the border, have a child, and is then immediately just allowed to become a citizen at the detriment and without any kind of democratic input of and by the legitimate citizenry.
Huh? Why do you think that applying the constitution would allow the USA to snatch Maduro? What part of the constitution allows for that?
The idea that the constitutional rights apply to everyone on the planet is a nice idea, but that's clearly not what is intended by the document - it's meant to apply to people in the USA. A lot of the language is specifically about the states and their relationship to the federal government, so I think you're mis-reading it if you think that it should apply outside of the USA.
You are trying to use reason and rationality to make sense of lying and narcissism. You are correct, you are not the first person to think of that, but the objective is to find, hunt, attack, assault, damage, destroy, and root out places where the human right of free speech/expression may exist.
The last thing you want to do is play right into the hand of psychopathic narcissists by "de-anonymizing" everyone. You simply do not understand what you are proposing and thereby condemning your children and all of humanity to with that mentality. It is advocacy for tyranny.
Why do you know about CSAM-as-a-service companies?
How could something like that even exist without it being a government operation like Epstein Island?
Somewhat related is a concern I have in general as things get more "agentic" and related to the prompt injection concerns; without something like legally bullet-proof contracts, aren't we moving into territory of basically "employing" what could basically be "spies" at all levels from personal (i.e., AI company staff having access to your personal data/prompts/chats) to business/corporate espionage, to domestic and international state level actors who would also love to know what you are working on and what you are thinking/chatting about and maybe what your mental health challenges are that you are working through with an AI chat therapist.
I am not even certain if this issue can be solved since you are sending your prompts and activities to "someone else's computer", but I suspect if it is overlooked or hand-waved as insignificant, there will be a time when open, local models will become useful enough to allow most to jettison cloud AI providers.
I don't know about everyone else, but I am not at all confident in allowing access and sending my data to some AI company that may just do a rug pull once they have an actual virtual version of your mind in a kind of AI replication.
I'll just leave it at that point and not even go into the ramifications of that, e.g., "cybercrimes" being committed by "you", which is really the AI impersonator built based on everything you have told it and provide access to.
reply