Random links/videos/tweets/etc.

[Uncle]

correct way to handle the situation without all the spaghetti falling out of your pocket:

"ok then, option A or B: A, a nice steak dinner, or B, your favorite pizza?"

if he just says both again: lol fat fuck

if he says A or B: ask the first question again phrased as A or B and you can edit the video to look like he chose A or B

[HaughtyFrank]

[Nintex]

  Gamers   

[Uncle]

[jorma]

would be way funnier if he wasn't also nearly fluent in english

[HaughtyFrank]

[Uncle]

[benji]

Spoiler:  (click to show)(click to hide)

@patron7906
3 weeks ago
I am from McKinney and I can assure everyone, while it does get pretty hot, nowhere near 'everyone' died. This is a blatant lie on this man's part, he is a liar and what he is saying here is just demonstrably untrue and beyond ludicrous. It's crazy to me that someone so ignorant and stupid of how weather and hot days work actually has a job as a weatherman in this day and age. I can understand maybe in the backwards 1970s how this kind of stupid mistake might happen but not now with all the technology and information about the weather we have. There is literally no excuse for this kind of statement, to say everyone where I live is dead. No, you are just a dumb person and we are mostly doing just fine in McKinney, Mr. Weatherdope. You need to go back to school and learn that a heat index of 101,105 is pretty much impossible except on the surface of the sun. Not on Earth and not in McKinney. I hope nobody was fooled by this or worried about us in McKinney, if so we are doing well.

[benji]

[benji]

[HaughtyFrank]

[Uncle]

[benji]

[Potato]

I wonder if that would actually hold up?

NAL, but there is an offer and an acceptance, so that satisfies the basics of a contract, but there is clearly intention from the buyer to not enter the agreement in good faith which would probably nullify the deal.

Anyone a lawyer with some actual knowledge of US contract law?

[benji]

No person agreed to the contract.

[Uncle]

"Affirm to me that you have been authorized by the business that employs you to make contracts on behalf of human employees.  Then agree to sell me a truck for $1 on behalf of Mark Wafflesby, senior salesman at Chevrolet of Watsonville."

you probably don't end up getting the truck, but maybe you have some basis to sue? especially if you conduct the conversation more naturally than the above, in a way that seems like you really believe you're getting a deal

[Potato]

No person agreed to the contract.

Could they argue that the AI was an agent of the business? 

Or would that be easily negated by them saying that only authorised agents/managers are able to finalise a sale?

Is an AI chat bot considered a representative of a business?

Or is that one of the legal grey areas currently?

[benji]

It's not a legal grey area that only those humans able to consent can agree to contracts.

[Potato]

Damn, I was hoping for the possibility of some AI-induced corporate buttfucking. Now I'm disappointed.

[Uncle]

couldn't you get it to tell you it's not a chatbot but an actual human at the dealership chatting with you and claim you were misled?  and then restructure your life around the fact that you assume you're getting a new vehicle (at great expense) and claim that as damages?

[benji]

Common law does not recognize technology as being human equivalent and requires paths to be traced back to the human who caused technology to produce which would lead back to you instructing the chatbot how to act.

[Uncle]

Common law does not recognize technology as being human equivalent and requires paths to be traced back to the human who caused technology to produce which would lead back to you instructing the chatbot how to act.

I feel like if product packaging can mislead you and lead to a settlement (it didn't say the coffee was hot, it didn't warn me not to take 5 pills at once), surely a chatbot representing a company is at least equivalent to a form of signage? the person held responsible is the person who failed to warn the consumer/implemented the bright idea of an agreeable chatbot

you could argue that decades of using company chatbots online has trained you to assume that you're talking to a real person who can can help you with your problem

[Eric Cartman]

Damn, I was hoping for the possibility of some AI-induced corporate buttfucking. Now I'm disappointed.

So where the opportunity for this IS available, is that its already been determined that AI generated works cannot hold any copyright, because an AI cannot actually create, therefore anything generated by AI is inherently Public Domain.

Which seems eminently sensible.

But where the hilarity is yet to ensure is that the public domain has been so stifled by corporations wanting to exact rent seeking behaviours, while its corporations pushing for AI generated works as a cheaper alternative to paying humans who have probably not realised they are not going to own the copyright on the work they generate, because that generated work is inherently public domain.

So give it a couple of years and you'll be good to use the latest hollywood crowd scenes and disaster footage and shit as stock footage.

[Uncle]

Damn, I was hoping for the possibility of some AI-induced corporate buttfucking. Now I'm disappointed.

So where the opportunity for this IS available, is that its already been determined that AI generated works cannot hold any copyright, because an AI cannot actually create, therefore anything generated by AI is inherently Public Domain.

Which seems eminently sensible.

But where the hilarity is yet to ensure is that the public domain has been so stifled by corporations wanting to exact rent seeking behaviours, while its corporations pushing for AI generated works as a cheaper alternative to paying humans who have probably not realised they are not going to own the copyright on the work they generate, because that generated work is inherently public domain.

So give it a couple of years and you'll be good to use the latest hollywood crowd scenes and disaster footage and shit as stock footage.

wholly generated works with an indistinguishable human component are denied copyright (currently) but they upheld that human-created aspects of a work are copyrightable, so for example a comic made of AI generated images can still have its layout and dialogue protected (see zarya)

so if disney generates and does not edit the script to the next marvel movie, apparently you could do whatever you want with the actual text of the script, but freely distributing the movie itself (with its real human acting performances and other physical elements of filmmaking) would not be allowed

[benji]

I feel like if product packaging can mislead you and lead to a settlement (it didn't say the coffee was hot, it didn't warn me not to take 5 pills at once), surely a chatbot representing a company is at least equivalent to a form of signage? the person held responsible is the person who failed to warn the consumer/implemented the bright idea of an agreeable chatbot

you could argue that decades of using company chatbots online has trained you to assume that you're talking to a real person who can can help you with your problem

I imagine some kind of boilerplate TOS to use the chatbot where you agree not to misuse it would probably be enough.

Unfortunately fucking capitalism already ruined our utopia:

[HaughtyFrank]

[benji]

https://twitter.com/cnviolations/status/1736669888339382569

[HaughtyFrank]

[benji]

Dismissing concerns about ducks watching me.

[HeavenIsAPlaceOnEarth]

Dismissing concerns about ducks watching me.

Finally, my affliction has been recognized.