Me too. And to be honest, the simple idea of a contact constantly sitting on my eyeball makes me squirm.

Reasons I’m too squeamish for contacts #407

It’s an article about funny orange man sitting in a garbage truck on a web forum. I reject the question. It’s not that deep. Go repost with an article you prefer if you’re that bothered.

It’s really not that deep

As someone who works in the field of criminal law (in Europe, and I would be shocked if it wasn’t the same in the US) - I’m not actually very worried about this. By that I don’t mean to say it’s not a problem, though.

The risk of evidence being tampered with or outright falsified is something that already exists, and we know how to deal with it. What AI will do is lower the barrier for technical knowledge needed to do it, making the practice more common.

While it’s pretty easy for most AI images to be spotted by anyone with some familiarity with them, they’re only going to get better and I don’t imagine it will take very long before they’re so good the average person can’t tell.

In my opinion this will be dealt with via two mechanisms:

• Automated analysis of all digital evidence for signatures of AI as a standard practice. Whoever can be the first person to land contracts with police departments to provide bespoke software for quick forensic AI detection is going to make a lot of money.

• A growth in demand for digital forensics experts who can provide evidence on whether something is AI generated. I wouldn’t expect them to be consulted on all cases with digital evidence, but for it to become standard practice where the defence raises a challenge about a specific piece of evidence during trial.

Other than that, I don’t think the current state of affairs when it comes to doctored evidence will particularly change. As I say, it’s not a new phenomenon, so countries already have the legal and procedural framework in place to deal with it. It just needs to be adjusted where needed to accommodate AI.

What concerns me much more than the issue you raise is the emergence of activities which are uniquely AI dependent and need legislating for. For example, how does AI generated porn of real people fit into existing legislation on sex offences? Should it be an offence? Should it be treated differently to drawing porn of someone by hand? Would this include manually created digital images without the use of AI? If it’s not decided to be illegal generally, what about when it depicts a child? Is it the generation of the image that should be regulated, or the distribution? That’s just one example. What about AI enabled fraud? That’s a whole can of worms in itself, legally speaking. These are questions that in my opinion are beyond the remit of the courts and will require direction from central governments and fresh, tailor made legislation to deal with.

Disney+

I’m learning a language as a hobby and Disney+ BY FAR is the most consistent in having dubs and subs available in a variety of languages. I haven’t actually watched anything that didn’t have it (for the language I’m learning). Whereas most things on other streaming sites don’t tend to have it at all unless it’s a foreign film and that’s the original language.

For me, it’s easily worth the money just for that

Good luck to em

Metal album when

That was an interesting read. Are you aware of any cities or towns which are built in a more European style with pedestrians in mind? I’m actually considering a few jobs in the states right now but I’m quite put off by how car reliant everything is.

I’ve given an example of a potential extraneous factor. That’s not the same as a hypothetical case being used to dismiss fringe cases that we know for a fact happen.

I literally just reworded the same point but ok

The existance of cases where you can be 99.9% certain of guilt does not eliminate the existence of fringe cases. We know for a fact that people HAVE been executed despite being innocent. That’s a risk you must accept if you support capital punishment.

It’s not a false dichotomy because it IS a dichotomy. It’s a binary decision. You either legalise capital punishment and accept the risk of executing someone innocent or you don’t legalise it. That is the choice.

But this is a case of all or nothing. You either say the death penalty IS acceptable or it ISN’T. There is no in between. So highlighting a case with certainty doesn’t address the issue of cases with less certainty.

Even then, there is some hypothetical scenario that could at least mitigate guilt. For example, drink spiking with some kind of drug. I’m not saying that’s what happened or I think that happened, my point is 100% certainty is an impossible bar.

With respect, it kind of misses the point to highlight a case where guilt is basically certain. That’s not my concern. My concern is the fringe cases with more ambiguity. I think that if there’s even a 1% chance that an innocent person is executed, the risk isn’t worth it.

Sure, you’ve invented a fictional scenario that has never happened but appears quite certain. But even then there are external factors you can’t account for such as duress.

That’s kinda what it comes down to for me though. Can you EVER be 100% sure? Even if you’re 99.5% sure, odds are sooner or later you’ll execute someone who was innocent. And in my opinion that one single lost innocent life means the practice is unjustifiable.

I wonder how many people who disagree with me are pro life.

My understanding is that “persons” refers to people in discrete groups, where what separates those groups is pertinent to the topic being discussed.

For example - ‘indigenous persons’ refers collectively to indigenous people, but acknowledges that there are separate subgroups of indigenous people within that. You could equally say “indigenous people” and it would be correct but you lose that nuance by not acknowledging that there are internal divisions within the group you are referring to.

Not saying that’s the dictionary definition, but that’s how it’s generally used in my field.

As an outsider looking in, I’ve seen a lot of footage of rallies and events (on both sides) that are just absolutely crazy to me. Almost dystopian. People with painted faces, all kinds of merch, hollering and shouting and cheering like it’s the X Factor or a rock concert or something. You see people being interviewed outside the events and it’s like a festival in the background. It’s really, really bizarre. We have problems with our politics here too but not like that. I can’t believe that all of those people are ACTUALLY that passionate about any policies themselves, it’s just vague culture wars nonsense with a bizarre personality contest as a proxy for it.

As I say, I’m not trying to act superior. My country has its share of problems too, just a very different sort.