What you have heard about is a feature called “Recall”, which is something that has not actually rolled out and will only be coming to PCs with specific neural processing units. Other windows users will not be affected (although of course that will change over time as old devices are replaced with new).

Is it possible? Yes, of course it’s possible. You could say that about pretty much any operating system - including Linux distros - if the functionality turns out to be popular.

However, to be 100% clear, this is functionality that the user can disable (either entirely, or on an app-by-app basis). And data is never transacted to the cloud or with Microsoft. What’s on the device does not leave the device. It’s also really not in Microsoft’s own interest at all to try taking on that responsibility… How would they know if you paid for an app/game/song or not, even if they wanted to?

But back to your question: yes, of course it is possible. This type of technology has already been prototyped in different ways (e.g. Apple have done work about identifying CSAM on the iPhone, although not implemented).

Yes, Linux gives you a lot more control. If you were to make the switch, I would list a hundred other reasons that are far more compelling than this storm in a teacup.

That said, there’s absolutely no reason a Linux distro couldn’t also bring the same functionality, if there is consumer appetite for it.

If you are looking to truly make it “impossible”, you need to air-gap your machine and not connect to the internet anymore.

In defence of the author, there is absolutely nothing about the term “AI” that just means “LLM” in an informed context (which is what Wired portends to be). And then the words “machine learning” are literally front and centre in the subtitle.

I don’t see how anyone could misunderstand this unless it was a deliberate misreading… Or else just not attempting to read it at all…

(That said, yes, I do hate the fact that product managers now love to talk about how every single feature is “AI” regardless of what it actually is/does)

It stems from an old proverb: “there is naught so queer as folk”, essentially meaning “people are strange”. The meaning of “queer” has shifted and narrowed over time to refer to sexuality, but kept its ties to this idiom, resulting in the TV show “queer as folk” and the generic phrase “queer folk”.

There is nothing especially pretentious or mythical about the word. It may just be your own assumptions/interpretations of it. Far more people have an issue with the word “queer” than they do “folk”. If you don’t like it, don’t use it, but you should also aim to shake the stigma from it, as it’s not what 99.9% of people mean when they use it.

https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/schools/school-zone-speed-limits-and-signs

In short: if you don’t know if it’s an “active” school zone or not… assume it is and just slow down. General sentiment with many road rules is “ignorance is not an excuse” and that’s what applies here.

In practice, most patrol officers would probably exercise some discretion (e.g.: were there lots of children around? Was the school visibly “open” in an obvious way?). If the school looked “closed” they might be lenient. But technically, they could legally pin you if they wanted to.

If you were to appeal it, you might be able to argue your case on mitigating circumstances. You’re entitled to your day in court if you feel you’ve been treated unfairly.

But again, the default position is “ignorance is not an excuse”, and if you’re operating a vehicle that can kill someone, your responsibility is to err on the side of caution.

It would depend exactly how big/substantial this ‘gathering’ is, but I could imagine that “Grove”, “Stand” or “Thicket” might be appropriate.

They aren’t exclusive to your definition, but could be applicable.

What about a “social climber”? Someone whose friendships are based on calculations about who can help them succeed in other ways?

I replied to you you elsewhere in this thread, but they never claimed to be getting 28% CTR. They only claimed that this format performs 28% better than alternatives.

If a different ad format was getting 1% CTR, then a 28% improvement is still only a total 1.28% CTR.

Careful, they didn’t claim to be getting 28% engagement from users… Just that this ad format performs 28% better than other ad types. We have no idea (from this article, at least) what the comparison actually means in real world usage.

Oprah did a very controversial, very public show about mad cow disease, implying it was in America, and led to a big lawsuit.

There are multiple sources of info, but for some easy listening, checkout the podcast ‘Maintenance Phase’ which did a 2 part feature on it.

Is that actually what we’re seeing reflected in the graph? Mmm, I’m not convinced. But it’s definitely true that she did hurt the beef industry in America.

In case you’re not aware, the latest version of Excel absolutely DOES have that setting (mentioned elsewhere here in the comments). While it’s wild that it took so long, it’s now a solvable problem and everyone should know about it (and upgrade)!

I think a key difference is that Apple had a very clear target demographic for the iPad in mind (lightweight laptop / heavy phone users), and then were prepared to see how it evolved on top of that premise.

With the Vision Pro, they haven’t been able to articulate their target userbase at all, and are pretty much relying on the early adopters to help define it for them.

Which isn’t to say it can’t find its place and be successful. But I don’t think it’s anything like Apple’s other product releases at all…

So, while this is a “general” question, it seems likely that most people will gravitate towards themes of porn and sexual violence when thinking about it. Let me discuss from that perspective.

To be clear, I am not an expert, but it is something I have thought a lot about in the context of my field in technology (noting how generative AI can be used to create very graphic images depicting non-consensual activities).

The short answer: we don’t concretely know for certain. There is an argument that giving people an “outlet” means they can satisfy an urge without endangering themselves in real life. There is also an argument that repeated exposure can dilute/dull the sense of social caution and normalise the fetishised behaviour.

I am very sympathetic to the former argument where it applies to acts between otherwise informed/consenting individuals. For example, a gay person in a foreign country with anti-gay laws; being able to explore their sexuality through the medium of ‘normal’ gay pornography seems entirely reasonable to me (but might seem disgusting by other cultural standards).

When it comes to non-consensual acts, I think there is a lot more room for speculation and concern. I would recommend reading this study as an example, which explored dangerous attitudes towards women that were shaped through pornography.

Some key takeaways:

1. It’s never as simple as saying “porn caused it”. There are a multitude of factors.
2. Regardless, there is a seemingly strong anecdotal connection between violent pornography and violent attitudes in real life.
3. It likely depends heavily on the individual and their own beliefs/perceptions/experiences before this development

And a final noteworthy line:

The view that pornography played a role in their clients’ harmful attitudes and/or behaviours was undisputed; what was harder for them to articulate was the strength of the contribution of pornography, given the complexities of the other contributing factors in their clients’ lives.

While it would be nice to imagine this, the reality is that anyone who is part of the Apple walled-garden isn’t going to suddenly abandon it because of hypothetical functionality they never had previously anyway. And anyone who has resisted Apple this long… Well, there were probably other reasons driving that long before this.

I can’t imagine this having any material impact on marketshare or profit. It will take harsher regulatory action for anything to happen.

That’s an appealing ‘conspiracy’ angle, and I understand why it might seem juicy and tantalising to onlookers, but that idea doesn’t hold up to any real scrutiny whatsoever.

Why would the Board willingly trash their reputation? Why would they drag the former Twitch CEO through the mud and make him look weak and powerless? Why would they not warn Microsoft and risk damaging that relationship? Why would they let MS strike a tentative agreement with the OpenAI employees that upsets their own staff, only to then undo it?

None of that makes any sense whatsoever from a strategic, corporate “planned” perspective. They are all actions of people who are reacting to things in the heat of the moment and are panicking because they don’t know how it will end.

That doesn’t make very much sense.

Yes, the board members who are into Effective Altruism are undoubtedly a piece of the puzzle. But everything you outline isn’t just common corporate knowledge, it’s basically well-documented public record.

And remember that this is a Board that Altman effectively hand-picked. He did not appoint a host of dum-dums to oversee him.

Whatever happened, there is waaaay more to this than anyone has been told. At this point it’s all speculation, but I think it’s pretty safe to assume it’s not just a case of “we didn’t know it was expensive” or “we didn’t know how popular Sam was”.