Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Sunday, 20-Sep-2026 07:53:50 JST feld

   in reply to

   • Mallory's Musings & Mischief
   • ティージェーグレェ
   @teajaygrey @malcircuit
   
   > At least in my experience I really wonder, when Joseph Gordon-Levitt, imagines that "the law" can shut companies down, upon what evidence is he basing that?
   
   of course the law can.
   
   Online poker. Wiped out overnight in 2011.
   
   Penny stock firms.
   
   Look how hard we went on Standard Oil.
   
   It's possible, but we never act until severe damage is done and it's not guaranteed we take the right action or dole out a severe enough punishment.
   
   but this wades into National Security waters now, so we'll never see AI companies completely wiped out. If there's a risk China or any of our adversaries will find a way to leverage this technology against us we'll keep pursuing it in some form. So that is the way it will be because we know the truth.
   
   This is just a technology we can't get the entire world to stay away from. It would be as difficult as converting everyone to the same religion.
   
   Best case scenario for total control keeping citizens away from it: treat it like nuclear material. How do we keep building it out though? Would have to be through the military, many more trillions would flow from taxpayers into the coffers of these AI companies after it runs through the military industrial complex's sieves.
   
   That's obviously not going to happen though. We just have to adapt to a new normal: compute is cheap, any exposed attack surface is extra vulnerable now, digital media cannot be trusted to be authentic, the global information sharing economy is now fractured. Copyright has probably already lost, yeah people will be out of jobs, the tech will keep getting better and better.
   
   A new chapter begins.
   • Embed this notice
     ティージェーグレェ (teajaygrey@snac.bsd.cafe)'s status on Sunday, 20-Sep-2026 07:53:52 JST ティージェーグレェ

     in reply to
     "Then the law can shut these companies down."
     
     I don't mean to diminish Joseph Gordon-Levitt's perspective; insomuch as I think so-called A"I" (and the related companies) is awful.
     
     However: the DOJ began prosecuting AT&T as a monopoly in 1974, AT&T settled: in 1982 and underwent the so-called "divestiture" (breaking up into RBOCs [Region Bell Operating Carriers]) and in the ensuing decades, it has reformed like the radioactive slime mold in comic of Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind (many, having only watched the animated film, perhaps are unaware of the villainous slime mold in the manga which Miyazaki continued laboring over for another dozen years after the film production had concluded).
     
     Similarly, Alphabet Inc. (aka Google, YouTube, etc.) has been convicted as a monopoly since in 2024.
     
     At least in my experience I really wonder, when Joseph Gordon-Levitt, imagines that "the law" can shut companies down, upon what evidence is he basing that?
     
     I also sometimes see or hear the popular myth that companies can somehow be "nationalized" as in: for all the corruption and deaths caused by PG&E for example, somehow, they could become a municipal service. I have absolutely no idea where people get these ideas.
     
     At least as far as I have ever observed things in the USA: it is a functioning oligopoly. Money and power, corruption, bribery (they call this "lobbying") all seem to be the prevailing tactics. RCA, driving Edwin Armstrong (inventor of FM radio) to suicide by bribing the FCC to outlaw FM radio, then settling with his widow after the patents expired to only start selling their own FM radios afterwards, seems to be the norm.
     
     When "the law" sides with those who are being exploited? In the USA? Where the police forces in the 21st century, fundamentally, display the same sorts of badges that plantation slave patrols did in the 1800s? (e.g. ), where the 13th Amendment, never outlawed slavery, it merely made it conditional insomuch as those "duly convicted" are potentially forced into carceral slavery?
     
     Joseph Gordon-Levitt, seems to imagine, that "the law" is going to do anything to thwart the A"I" bullshit? If anything, from my vantage, it seems far more plausible that unless there are revolutionary reforms made, in the USA, "the law" is much more likely to facilitate A"I" committing many more abuses.
     
     So, unfortunately, it does seem to "add up" alas, for those such as I and presumably you and maybe also Joseph Gordon-Levitt, given that we are not rich and powerful and we care about decency and rights? The deck is stacked against the likes of us.
     
   • Embed this notice
     Mallory's Musings & Mischief (malcircuit@thingy.social)'s status on Sunday, 20-Sep-2026 07:53:53 JST Mallory's Musings & Mischief

     in reply to

     Either, this "AI" stuff is so capable and powerful that there is a plausible chance it could kill everyone (in which case it should be either heavily regulated or banned entirely), or it's mostly harmless cloud software with limited applications (in which case it makes no sense to invest so much money and resources into the technology).

     Which is it?

     For either situation, it would make sense for these companies to be intensely scrutinized and investigated, because shit isn't adding up.

   • Embed this notice
     Mallory's Musings & Mischief (malcircuit@thingy.social)'s status on Sunday, 20-Sep-2026 07:53:54 JST Mallory's Musings & Mischief

     It's not rocket science, folks.

     https://youtube.com/shorts/eb4e0qtr0E4