Notices by Carina C. Zona (is in Berlin) (cczona@hachyderm.io)

@inthehands in the documentary, Parton expresses that she was unsure at first because of Fonda's politics. But the three of them quickly found a deep mutual respect and affection. Dolly I think also appreciated the film's working class viewpoint because of her own background. She may not have seen herself as an actist in the same way Fonda was, but she had her own way of transforming lives through her work and its proceeds.

@inthehands There os a documentary on YouTube that answers this question. The short answer is that "9 to 5" was conceived as part of Jane Fonda's radical activism then developed in collaboration with labor organizers whose agenda was explicitly incorporated into the storyline along with movement members' personal stories. It's a parody in some respects, of course, but it also was a very real depiction of working women's experiences and fantasies. Even the movie's title is a shoutout to the movement, that already had bore that name.

@inthehands ugh that's a disgusting abuse of a great cuisine. That toot might need a trigger warning.

@dalias nailed it. Consent requires being able to make an uncoerced decision that is informed by the relevant facts. Using pressure or deception is not "getting around" consent, it's flat out violating consent. People willing to treat others' consent as violable in one context are untrustworthy in any context. Same for anyone who treats refusal of consent as "punishment"; if you're not willing to accept no consent or withdrawal of consent, then a yes is meaningless since it there wasn't an uncoerced choice available for them to make.

@inthehands I gave it from 2012-2018, called Schemas for the Real World and Consequences of an Insightful Algorithm!

@thomasfuchs agreed. Not just the deceptive use of pronouns but also the deception that chatbots supposedly experience emotional states; regret, embarrassment, enthusiasm, affection, etc. Users are being deliberately conned. It's unconscionable that the vendors configure their products to grossly misrepresent what they are. Especially after having seen how much harm it's doing. People have been led into psychosis, delusions, even suicide. It's horrific.

@dalias @glent @nixCraft Privacy reasons as well. They're throwing entire emails into an LLM. What are the odds that the senders and recipients consented to have their messages shared with a third party like that? OpenAI has warned that everything submitted to it is subpoenable.

@dalias oh like that Shaun Mendes song! I don't know the name but the lyrics creep me. As if the writer thinks he's a good guy for trying to undermine a someone's relationship out of selfishness. If you think the person is in an abusive relationship, sure that's something to address. But dude, 👏 that 👏 is 👏 not 👏 about 👏 you 👏.

@thomasfuchs So let's see if I understand this:

1. He put a production database into a REPL.

2. Without having made a backup.

3. Onto a platform that also doesn't make a backup.

4. Then set an LLM loose onto files and data stores without setting system-level or database-level access restrictions on them.

And it's replit that's untrustworthy? Oh okay.

@inthehands An easy tell: his preposterous "solution" to the Imminent Threat that he claims to be Very Concerned About is for everyone to immediately start using the Imminent Threat (that he only profits from if everyone first becomes dependent on it). The stench of desperation would be embarrassing if it weren't so disgustingly predatory.

Drastic budget cuts for FOSS, by the EU, and the explanation given is that "because lots of budget are allocated to AI, there is not much left for Internet infrastructure". https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/17/foss_funding_vanishes_from_eus/ So here is one more way that the fever over "AI" bullshit does real harm. Infra projects that protect security, privacy, and other vital needs will be underfunded so that more money can be thrown into the "AI" black hole. Sigh.