Pretty sure a) it's not a matter of whether you agree and b) GDPR still considers always-on listening to be something the affected user has to actively consent to. Since someone in a household may not realize that another person's device is "always on" and may even lack the ability to consent - such as a child - you are probably going to find that it is patently illegal according to both the letter and the spirit of the law.
Is your argument that these affected parties are not users and that the GDPR does not require their consent?
Don't take this as hostility. I am 100% for local inference. But that is the way I understand the law, and I do think it benefits us to hold companies to a high standard. Because even such a device could theoretically be used against a person, or could have other unintended consequences.
Both are pandoras box. Open Claw has access to your credit cards, social media accounts, etc by default (i.e. if you have them saved in your browser on the account that Open Claw runs on, which most people do.)
Not necessarily. Workers don't want to move into the overclass, they just want to live with dignity. One major theme is that things that seemed very ordinary and attainable a generation ago for ordinary people, like owning a house, now seem out of reach.
Circa 1970 Issac Asimov wrote an essay that started with a personal anecdote about how amazed he was that he could get a thyroidectomy for his Graves Disease for about what he made writing one essay -- regardless of how good or bad it really is today, you're not going to see people express that kind of wonder and gratitude about it today.
but I think the real working class stance is that you want protection from economic shocks more than "participation", "ownership", "a seat at the table", "upside", etc. This might be a selfish and even antisocial thing to ask for over 80 years near the start of the second millennium, but I think it would sell if it was on offer. It's not on offer very much because it's expensive.
One could make the case that what we really need is downward mobility. Like what would have happened if Epstein had been shot down the first time or if Larry Summers had "failed down" instead of "failing up?" My experience is that most legacy admissions are just fine but some of them can't test their way out of a paper bag and that's why we need a test requirement.
> Workers don't want to move into the overclass, they just want to live with dignity.
Got it in one. Would I like to travel First Class and stay in fancy hotels? Sure, but I’d much rather have a house that I can improve to meet my needs instead. Would I like a fancy luxury car with all the trimmings over my sixteen-year-old Honda? Absolutely, but the latter is paid off and gets us around just fine. Would I like that spiffy Hasselblad X2D and some lenses? You betcha, but I’d rather take a proper holiday for the first time in fifteen years instead of buying another thing.
The problem is that society at present isn’t organized to prioritize necessities like shelter and healthcare, favoring wealth extraction and exploitation instead. Workers don’t want megayachts and hypercars and butlers, we just want to live more than we work.
I love the idea of "downward mobility". In particular over the past 30 years we've created a new class of ultra-ultra-rich with even more wealth than the robber barons of the gilded age had, and we need to figure out how to dismantle that entire class. A puny 3% wealth tax would take over 100 years to knock them down, and that's presuming that their wealth is static and not growing at a rate much greater than 3%.
You clearly don't know what the term upward mobility means. It doesn't necessarily mean moving from one class to another - though that WOULD be included within its scope, however extraordinary an example it may be.
It can mean moving within a class.
Surely most people want to better their station. To argue against that is insane and counter to every observable fact about human nature.
It can, but it's not how it's used most of the time, so kind of a pedantic distinction.
And many do not even want to "move within a class" that much. They'd be satisfied to keep their job and retain the same constant purchasing power and ability to buy food, feed family, pay rent/morgage, year after year.
She's not wrong. The discovery process has shown that such decisions were made by Meta and Zuck himself, knowingly, in the face of research that opposed their goals.
It's because there has been a chilling effect because of the stochastic (and literal) terrorism of the state - YC's own Peter Theil uses Palantir services to pinpoint "domestic terrorists" (read: anyone who exercises their rights to protest or speaks dissent in real life or online) to ICE, who then extrajudicially disappear people.
OpenClaw is literally the most poorly conceived and insecure AI software anyone has ever made. Its users have had OpenClaw spend thousands of dollars, and do various unwanted and irreversible things.
But why would anyone do this? The UI will obviously change unpredictably on every generation, there's no way to deliver quality control if the UI is generated on the fly.
I could see this being useful for client and patient onboarding in the services and medial sectors respectively. For example:
A potential client providing information for a law-firm regarding their grievance.
A patient filling out the medical questionnaire prior to their first visit to a medical practice.
Rather than having a fully deterministic form, you'd be providing them with forms that adapt to their specific issue. The data can then be intelligently stored both as JSON and a more generic record in an RDBMS.
That can be achieved with 100% infallability with a form framework like FormKit. Why risk it, especially in a high-stakes situation like health? Pretty sure it would actually be against some kind of regulation to do that specifically in the healthcare field.
It depends on whether your API provider is HIPAA compliant and what sort of disclosures are provided. If you're running inference in house then it's not an issue provided you're following all the other guidelines.
With FormKit you'd still be using a predefined deterministic flow where all the conditionals are accounted for in advance. FormKit wouldn't be able to generate a truly non-deterministic UI that changes based upon how the user answers. If you're wanting to sue your neighbor for their tree falling onto your house, an AI powered UI for a law firm could be giving you form fields on what type of tree it was, how old the tree was, hot tall the tree was, how close it was to the property line, and what room in your house the tree landed in... All generated from how the user responded to an initial "what's your grievance?" question.
I'm not advocating for or against this type of approach - I'm just pointing out a few potential use-cases for it since that's what you asked for.
Is your argument that these affected parties are not users and that the GDPR does not require their consent?
Don't take this as hostility. I am 100% for local inference. But that is the way I understand the law, and I do think it benefits us to hold companies to a high standard. Because even such a device could theoretically be used against a person, or could have other unintended consequences.
reply