On one hand I'm scared of my CV for example being rejected by some LLM. On the other hand I doubt people in EU Parl have any (enough?) technical knowledge to create law regarding this matter

But still: something scraping your CV for keywords, or failing to transform it into whatever evil format the recruiter requires, isn't AI, but might still reject your CV or cause it to be rejected. What's special about AI?

>What's special about AI?

VC firms have brainwashed people into thinking LLMs are "I" when really, they are XOR'ing GIGO machines.

Because executives, everywhere it seems, are gullible enough to be tricked into believing that A(sigh)I isn't a colossal waste of money and electricity, they are throwing it at every problem, everywhere.

This means that a fucking stupid framework of frameworks designed to turn electricity into heat via compute is being inserted into every single aspect of commerce, banking, law enforcement, warfare, business decision making, and yes, hiring.

The difference between scraping a resume for keyworks and having an LLM evaluate it is that you can look at the list of keywords and understand what it is happening.

A list of keywords is comprehensible and reproducible. You can subpoena a list of keywords. You can modify and control a list of keywords. You can legislate the requirement or forbidding of keyword criteria.

An LLM is just a tunnel of sewage that pours shit out the other end, a black box, a mystery.

But A(sigh)I excels at letting people be lazy and generating an endless stream of dreck designed to addict the gullible so it is going to take over the world.

At least the EU is trying to slow it.

Sounds like a being a bit in a hurry.

Once jack is removed from laptops it will be streamed to laptops as well... </irony>

I believe it is not firmware. Because of many reasons, one would be issuing firmware release for every machine would be impossible. It is probably lying so low in the hardware layer, one cannot simply remove or alter it without desoldering etc.

Many microprocessors are capable of having selective updates and it may be the same processor which is fetching the update. You might think of their internals to be more like a crude file system.

Ok, next to impossible then. Maybe printing tiny white text on solid black background could help obfuscate the dots. Or using a pen plotter...

What if you print a page with a slightly yellow background? Would it know to use a different color for the tracking dots?

Why not toilet control - if you have not enough fiber in your ... the electronic money you have on the bank account won't be able to buy you more meat, suggesting vege instead.

But where is the limit of freedom? Where is the border we should stop before or fight for it somehow?

When I was a kid they told us: your freedom ends where somebody’s freedom starts. I still think it is valid and insightful.

> When I was a kid they told us: your freedom ends where somebody’s freedom starts. I still think it is valid and insightful.

When I was younger, I thought this was a good idea. The problem with this rule is that where the boundary between "individual freedom" and "somebody else's freedom" lies varies a lot between different people (and cultures).

I thing the human rights declaration is a good baseline that is universal.

Every “freedom” has two sides. Positive and negative freedom. You don’t have the freedom to dump nasty chemicals into bodies of water (lack of positive freedom), but I have the freedom to not have carcinogens in my drinking water (negative freedom). Some examples are clear cut, in the sense that we as a society surely all agree on where the line should be between positive and negative, but all examples need to be discussed on an individual basis, because they’re all different in terms of where we draw the line. But you can’t use the slippery slope argument here, because the slope works in the other direction too for any given example, the more positive freedom you have, the less negative freedom you have.

This is a refreshingly balanced take, which seems to frequently get lost in discussions.

The more I think about policy, the more it resembles a multi-objective optimisation problem.

Libertarianism is bunk because of this. It's not about freedom, it's about your freedom and no one else's.

Libertarians say they are anti regulation, but I ask them if I can murder them to steal their property.

Apparently they are all in favor of that regulation.

Similar to anti gun control people. Ok, I'm your neighbor, can I arm myself with chemical and biological weapons? Or a conventional bomb that will definitely destroy the entire block?

Hm, funny, they are in favor of some gun control.

The second amendment is the right to keep and bear arms allegedly. You know if you're a well regulated militia.

Anyway everything I listed is arms.

If you want to be literalist as to the actual arms of the second amendment, then nobody should be armed with anything but a breech loading musket.

Surely though limiting the government's positive freedom of ubiquitous surveillance, like this example of printers, is something that I'm sure would be resoundingly popular in a democratic society. This seems as clear cut as limiting the freedom to dump toxic chemicals into water supplies.

It is exceedingly popular in the general case hence why every slime-ball seeking to surveil people so that their pet issue can be enforced with an iron fist reframes it as freedom to dump toxic waste, drive 200mph in a school zone or print counterfeit dollars, etc.

> The printer thing doesn't noticeably affect anyone negatively unless they commit substantial crimes

I'm not sure we have as universal agreement on what constitutes "crime" as you imply. Several whistleblowers have been convicted on the basis of printer watermarks - some of us certainly will fall on the side of preferring the existence of said whistleblowers in the federal government.

People generally don't care about making policy based on what is going to affect a whistleblower. The policy is done for the normal case. I'm not sure how much support you'd get on any issue if your argument is "but what about whistleblowers" other than in single-issue niche groups.

25 years ago the “hacker” community was more libertarian and would have been horrified at the idea of devices tracking individuals for some anomalous safety goal.

Some of those same people developed the surveillance state and the generation that followed thinks we should all wear Meta glasses at all times for “safety”. Meanwhile the advertisers and authoritarians behind them are snickering.

Donald E. Knuth approves. https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/organ.html

I too approve, but I'm sickly envying a pedal keyboard to exercise. I have no place in my home really, I know I could just buy a Studiologic pedalboard with 17 keys, along with SL X SE, but it's quite expensive and space consuming...

Your application for XYZ was rejected because the LLM was instructed to. Please do not try again later, because the outcome might be different.

Sounds exactly the same as the current situation.

Must save it. Some day it might be needed to do some advertising regarding mutiny against government or to gather people in the post apocalypse time...

We need a global deployment of this as a protective measure just in case aliens like the ones in "A Quiet Place" invade.

> which require low-latency responses, such as content moderation, fraud detection, dynamic pricing, etc.

Is it even legal to give different prices to different customers?

It depends on what basis. You can't discriminate based on protected classes.

Of course it is. That how the airlines stay in business.

However imagine entering a store where the camera looks up your face in shared database and profiles you as a person who will pay higher prices - and the prices are displayed near you according to your profile...