🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

OI!!!

YER BUGGERIN’ LOICENSE HAS EXPOIRED!!! 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

ONE HUNNIT TESCO CLUBCARD POINTS ‘AVE BIN DEDUCTED FROM YER ACCOUN’!!! 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

YER THREE QUID 'ANDY OR A SLOBBY ROBBY IS GONNA BE A FIVER FROM NOW ON!!! 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

YER WILL ALSO ONLY BE ABLE TER CHOOSE FROM A VAJOINER OR AN 'AM SANDWICH!!! 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

FAILURE TO RENEW YER LOICENCE IS GONNA RESUL’ IN THA LOSS OV MORE CLUBCARD POINTS!!! 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Ben is clearly culturally appropriating Anis al-Dawla, royal consort of Naser al-Din Shah Qajar of Iran (r. 1848–1896)

Nothing, Forever: Silicon Valley Edition

Bull kelp:

Totally agree. Current Democratic leadership is utterly worthless and in practical effect the same as if the Democratic Party was led by republicans. Its a predictable outcome of the alleged pattern of “strategic voting”.

Just shut it down for the next 2.75 years.

This. He was groomed to be a party insider by the most insider of party insiders.

I think it’s for fixing a tire.

Mark the thread. My record stands and and disagreeing typically has ended with those being in the wrong side of things.

I’m not here to tell you things pleasurable to your senses.

Meanwhile half of Lemmy advocating for these bills because ‘llm bad’

I don’t think I am. Just mark the convo and come back to it.

I’m gaming out the realistic consequences of what a law will mean. It has nothing to do whatsoever if you approve if these companies or not to try and understand the consequences of what will happen if a law like this passes. You don’t get to pick or choose if the speech is from an LLM or a company that gets limited or from an individual. There is no difference from a legal perspective.

And this law and approach to limiting speech to “protect people” from the stupid consequences of their own action, they aren’t new. And we already know the consequences. Large corporate entities will just get around them or pay an inconsequential fine, and individuals will have their rights curtailed as a result

The entire thread here is falling for an incredibly obvious astroturfing campaign because they associate LLMs with big bad corporations and the real consequences these bad companies have wreaked. But limiting free speech on the internet won’t stop them, what it will stop is our ability to communicate and resist them.

You aren’t going to get to have it both ways. I promise you, what you are advocating for is such a profound disaster and this whole thing is being astroturfed by tech companies to goad you into limiting your own speech.

Wikipedia, Google, chatgpt etc are not legal authorities or legal professionals.

Yes. And neither are LLMs or their derivatives.

The reason it’s dangerous to get legal or health information from a chatbot is the same reason you wouldn’t want to randomly trust reddit.

And yet people do, and we accept that as a necessary consequence of maintaining free speech as a principal.

The exact arguments being accepted in this thread are the same which led directly to crackdowns in Hungary, China, and Russia.

If you are okay with limiting and regulating LLMs as a form of speech, I promise it’s your speech which will end up limited, and a very small number of companies will control all speech on the internet. You should stop.

Let’s swap out a chatbot with a sloptuber on YouTube making up stuff about sovereign citizen nonsense. How about then.

That’s a totally irrelevant comparison. There is no equivalent publisher of the law to the US House of reps. Nothing the Wikipedia publishes has legal bearing; Everything the house of Reps publish does have legal bearing.