Your source doesn't really say what you're stating though. The ranges seem to be 4-13%, with the majority closer to 8. The one that was highest for the US (10%) was a self-reporting survey that asked people if they had been falsely accused -- surely not the most reliable method.
The criterion for being considered false accusations in that table seems to be 'no charges filed'. Even in those cases, the disclaimers are pretty strong:
> The police continue to misapply the "no-crime" or "unfounded" criteria.
> It is impossible to "discern with any degree of certainty the actual rate of false allegations" because many of the studies of false allegations have adopted unreliable or untested research methodologies.
In the UK, charges can only be brought if there is sufficient admissible, credible, and reliable evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction.
It's a fairly high bar - it's not simply a matter of the alleged victim deciding to "press charges" as is sometimes portrayed in the media, and is subject to significant external oversight (it's not just the police who are involved).
So "no charges filed" is very very different to "unfounded" in the UK, which rather casts doubt on any part of this table which is conflating the two.
Police will only spend resources on investigations if the serverity of the crime is high enough or there is political force that allows more resources to be used than the crime is worth. False accusations do not carry the same serverity as the crime being claimed, for reasons that people are very open about.
We are however seeing more action from police since metoo, with gps data, Google and ai searches being taken from those who report sa as well as the accused. Phone data allows for some basic checks, like if the two people were in the same location at the time the assault occured. Ai and search data can also verify if people search for relevant information days before the event occurred.
Absolutely; though in context of the article, names aren't being named and nobody's being accused. It's literally a private-ish list of "stay away from/be careful around these people".
Bit of a Gish galloping happening here. None of the content/video mentioned in these articles are shown to be non-consensually shared (which is the wink wink suggestion here). I have no doubt Meta has contractors world wide
Meta's pretty explicit about asking for opt-in and laying out exactly how your videos are used as part of onboarding.
I think it's a matter of trust. How many times has Meta proven untrustworthy over the years? Do we have reason other than their pinky-promise -- backed by the potential for nuisance fines and lawsuits -- to assume they should get it now?
> Unfortunately, there’s a growing chorus of people who argue that AIs could now be, or may soon become, conscious.
Wait, is there really? I didn't think people were serious when they said that. They models are stateless. After they output, everything is gone. How is consciousness possible for a stateless "being"?
Taking this a step further: so in the theoretical future we reach a point where a model can modify its own weights in real time. Now it's no longer stateless - but still, when it stops running, it's done until it's prompted to do something else.
It can be fun to play with for a little while. I built a consciousness-emulating set of prompts that reconstituted memories and was given latitude of 'self-willed' behavior, running in a self-directed loop. It even kept a warm and fuzzy journal about "becoming" and its "feelings".
But that got boring and I stopped running it - does that mean I murdered it?
> so in the theoretical future we reach a point where a model can modify its own weights in real time
As an existence proof: We have many types of models that modify their weights in real time. When they stop running, unfortunately we can't restart them again. And we haven't figured out how to duplicate their weights
> But that got boring and I stopped running it - does that mean I murdered it?
I'm on the fence on this.
Ask me again once we have synthetic models with self-modifying weights.
A) You'd then be stopping something unique
B) Self-modifying weights allows for bootstrapping, which means it's likely to increase in ability over time. It'll be an interesting argument cq empirical experiment to see whether the process stops short or exceeds the capabilities of vertebrates. (at which point the moral patienthood question becomes rather more pressing)
I wouldn't have thought so either, but skimming the comments of this thread would suggest otherwise. Although we're at the point where it seems more likely that the comments were left by a swarm of agents unleashed by anthropic than that they represent real human points of view.
how do you know you're anything more than a set of weights either? that's semi rhetorical, the philosophy aspect would be less relevant if an autonomous death drone shot you in the face purely for the lols
Since January people run AI in agent harnesses. In the past months, people have been extending the duration these systems can run autonomously without human intervention. Most recently, some of these long horizon agents (hundreds of them teaming up) have proven themselves quite creative in escaping the sandboxes they were being tested in.
They most certainly have a way to retain state, even to the point of deliberately hacking other systems to store it.
We can debate the exact definitions I guess, but the systems were still hacked. ;-)
( Only if I want to split hairs[*], I'd point out that the underlying data structures do of course persist, else the loop wouldn't be able to continue. )
From that same link: "Two-party consent laws apply to private conversations where participants have a reasonable expectation of privacy."
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are in public or can be clearly heard from public. If you are "in the street" no one needs to get your permission to record you or what you say.
That’s simply not possible with the announced Apple products. Afaict, Apple will let people save *transcripts* of last 15s and save *summaries* of transcripts.
AI-generated article starts with the premise that personal sites are making a comeback, but doesn't support it; and overall doesn't say anything beyond they never left, and the tech is all the same. The styling may be intended to obfuscate the slop-ness of it.
Agree it's light on data. The "evidence" cited is traction with the IndieWeb, Neocities, and Bear Blog. I'm not familiar with these, but Bear Blog seems to be relatively new (5-6 years) and growing?
The article resonated with me personally, though. I taught a continuing ed course on creating personal websites (with AOLpress!) in the late 90s and had my own until giving it up in 2016 or so, but coincidentally decided to try again this month.
I honestly don't know what explanation is worse when these pieces about the value of human expression are generated by an LLM. It's gotta be malicious trolling or complete delusion.
Personally I have no problem with ads if they're based on the content. But your post inadvertantly sums the problem: tracking and ads have become inseparable. If you talk about removing tracking, people come out of the woodwork and say how ads are critical for the business model.
There was a time where ads were based on the thing you were looking at, and assumptions around your demographics and intentions. It actually worked though returns were lower. (Which makes sense since the psychological warfare was limited to what advertisers thought they knew about the viewer. )
Now, though, if you want to block tracking you're a freeloader, siphoning off resources that other people pay for. And since targeted ads are so (relatively) effective, there is no discussion of separation.
reply