Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What’s next? OnlyFansAI? Blows my mind, she is 23 years with 1.8M followers?!
I imagine 1.79M of them are living in mommy’s basement, lights out while glued to computer scree.[quote quote=7191]I”d say Biden has been very successful at the border. It is exactly what his administration wants. You can include some of the so called Republicans too. The kicker is the troops. He can play it tough with troops which is all for show and “chaotic” at the same time without any change in outcome. Win win for Joe. Lose Lose for the country and hapless political opposition. The press will go wild with it. Pretty diabolically clever in my view.[/quote]
I think you have confused inept with clever. Just saying…
Too bad it’s behind the WSJ paywall.
I’ll take flyer here. I believe 70% of Americans favor LEGAL immigration, not the shit show that is happening now.
There are roughly 40 M people in the country living below the poverty line who want and deserve a better life for themselves and their families.
Is it too much to ask liberals to help those who are already here first?
So, I asked ChatGPT if AI should be regulated.
“As an AI language model, I don’t have personal opinions or beliefs, but I can provide information to help answer your question.
The question of whether or not the government should regulate AI is a complex and contentious issue that has been debated by scholars, policymakers, and industry experts. Some argue that regulation is necessary to ensure that AI is developed and used in a safe and ethical manner, while others argue that too much regulation could stifle innovation and hinder progress in the field.
Proponents of regulation argue that AI has the potential to cause harm if not developed and used responsibly. They argue that government oversight can help prevent unintended consequences, such as algorithmic bias, privacy violations, and safety risks. Regulations could also help ensure that AI is developed and used in a transparent and accountable manner.
Opponents of regulation argue that AI is still in its early stages of development and that regulations could stifle innovation and limit the potential benefits of the technology. They argue that industry-led standards and best practices are sufficient to ensure the safe and ethical development and use of AI.
There are also concerns about the international competitiveness of countries with different regulatory environments, and the possibility of regulatory arbitrage, where companies may move to countries with looser regulations.
In summary, the question of whether or not the government should regulate AI is a complex and nuanced issue with arguments on both sides. Ultimately, it will be up to policymakers to weigh the potential benefits and risks of regulation and determine the appropriate level of oversight.”
LOL, sounds like someone running for political office.
Two things I am certain of.
1) AI, like new technology that preceded it, will be misused and abused.
2) Government will be unable to regulate its development and growth.Anheuser-Busch is no stranger to being on the wrong side of social issues.
Remember Carson King? On a fluke, he raised over $1M for a children’s hospital in 2019. Busch was offering to match the fundraising and even place Carson’s picture on Busch Light cans.
Everything was good until a reporter found some racist tweets by Carson from 2011. Busch pulled the plug on the deal, with a good deal of backlash for doing so.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/22/us/carson-king-busch-beer-venmo-trnd/index.html
RE: Blinken as Secretary of State. Scary thing, he might be the most qualified of the bunch. Is there a current cabinet secretary who is qualified?
This is an interesting case.
Oregon’s adoption laws require that adoption agencies and foster care providers do not discriminate against prospective adoptive or foster parents based on their religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation. In theory, no one can be excluded or rejected from the adoption process solely based on their religious beliefs.
The case was filed in US District Court in Eastern Oregon, Pendleton Division, which includes Harney county. If you recall, a district judge in Harney county ruled to place a hold on Oregon’s new anti 2A gun laws. Like California, thinking is pretty conservative the further east you get from I5.
Seems clear to me the defendants will argue this is not about religion but is really about what is best for the child. Problem is, in this case what is best for the child is determined solely by the by the Dept of Human Services. Pretty easy to see how this decision is made.
DHS rules dictates minimum standards for foster parents. She appears to meet all of the requirements save one- rejecting her faith.
Not sure how this one turns out, but it is another power grab by the nanny state to groom future progressives.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/energy-insecurity-climate-change-geopolitics-resources
A good read energy security, policy and who the winners might be as we stumble towards carbon net zero in 2050.
[quote quote=7059]I think you’re spot on. However Stanford’s “path of least resistance”, may instead be a rocky road? https://justthenews.com/nation/free-speech/stanford-law-required-courses-under-scrutiny-amid-fallout-letting-students-shut[/quote]
From the article -“The false narrative running through the whole curriculum is obvious: that we are a systematically racist, gender-biased, environmentally poisonous society and culture, whose legal system perpetuates injustice that Stanford Law grads must address on their way toward ushering in a socialist utopia,” von Spakovsky wrote.
Stanford Law didn’t respond to queries seeking its response to criticism about its decision to let disruptive students off the hook and politically loaded mandatory first-year classes.”
So Stanford Law has determined the best course of action is to say nothing? At the very least it needs to defend its decision to disregard Stanford’s Code of Conduct.
From GR – “The resources of the Democratic Party in keeping Trump front and center are apparently limitless.”
Dems hate Trump, but they can’t survive without him. During the last election, every left leaning candidate in WA and OR was running against Donald Trump. I doubt it was much different across the country.
Nope, the dems need Trump. Who have they got? Bernie, Biden and Liz? Mayor Pete? Headboard Harris? Newsome? Without Trump, anyone running has to run on their record. In 2019, you had a choice of Trump or another. 80 Million voters, faced with a Hobson’s choice of Trump or the other guy, decided not to vote for Trump.
It could happen again…
[quote quote=7023]We are so fuc*& d. I am glad I will be dead when these imbeciles ( and their parents) fully take over. it kills me that the values which made our country exceptional are now passé.[/quote]
It hard to swallow how far we have fallen in the last 50 years. From 1870 to 1970, the US led the world with new ideas, patents and machines. Over the last 50 years, the US has lost its fastball. IMO, we held a lead in digital technology for about 15 years and managed to fritter it away.
We’ve gone from being inventors to influencers.
We’re on a trajectory similar to Rome and the Han Dynasty. They became bloated and expensive to maintain. Citizens lost their sense of unity. Elites became more interested in their own wealth and reputation than supporting the empire. Like failed empires of the past, we are suffering from a run of ineffectual leaders, and the next election will likely not reverse that trend.
In 1962, Kennedy rallied Americans around the challenge of going to the moon. “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we’re willing to accept. One we are unwilling to postpone.”
Looking back, we lost our sense of purpose after landing on the moon. It seems like anyone under 40 goes into a full scale meltdown if they can’t access social media for 30 minutes.
I ache thinking about what lies ahead for my granddaughters.
[quote quote=7019]
BTW, begun drawing Social Security yet?
As noted, I won’t be drawing Social Security for
fiveseven more years. I did mention that, not only do I have to wait two more years longer than the generation before, but I also paid in at higher rates. What I neglected to mention was that, actuarially speaking, our live expectancy is considerably — considerably — shorter than that of our forbears. And here’s proof. In just a few years, the average American life expectancy has dropped by nearly three years. So in sum:- My generation and I have to wait two years longer to get Social Security.
- We are paying in at a higher rate, and
- We will get it for three years less than the generation before us.
Well, when the secretary of Health and Human services calls out states that allow sales of “assault weapons” and and never mention the load 37.5 million diabetics have on health care and life expectancy, its not hard to see where the problem is.
No one wins an election campaigning for healthier food choices.
