Worse yet, instead of a checkbox to opt in/out of a newsletter or marketing email when signing up or checking out, it simply opts the user in. Simply doing business with a company is consent to spam, with the excuse that the user can unsubscribe if they don’t want it.
Tactics like these should be illegal, but instead they have become industry standards.
Not everyone. If your business is chill and you are REEEEALY thoughtful and respectful with newsletters you will be rewarded with open rates well in excess of 50%…
At least if this "Store cookies?" question is implicitly referencing EU regulations, those regulations don't require consent for cookies which are considered essential, including a cookie to store the response to the consent question (but certainly not advertising tracking cookies). So the respectful replacement for "Ask me again" is "Essential cookies only" (or some equivalent wording to "Essential" like "Required" or "Strictly necessary"). And yes, some sites do get this right.
I’ve not seen a site that remembers your selection of “reject all”/“essential only”. It would actually be hard to argue that it would count as an essential cookie, nothing about the site depends on remembering your rejection. I guess that makes “maybe later” more reasonable since it’s going to ask you every time until you relent.
"Reject all" doesn't have to be cookie, the answer could go to the browser storage.
Basically it just exists in your browser, telling it "the user didn't agree to cookies, so don't send this data and don't render those blocks". The only thing that web server knows is that requests come from someone who didn't send any cookies.
Huh? Of course those get remembered, and of course it's allowed by GDPR. If the websites you visit don't remember "reject all", they're doing it maliciously (or out of incompetence, I guess).
At least we haven’t gotten to Elysium levels yet, where machines arbitrarily decide to break your arm, then make you go to a government office to apologize for your transgressions to an LLM.
We’re getting close with ICE for commoners, and also for the ultra wealthy, like when Dario was forced to apologize after he complained that Trump solicited bribes, then used the DoW to retaliate on non-payment.
However, the scenario I describe is definitely still third term BS.
That raises an interesting point. Imagine we have helper bots or sex bots and they get someone killed or rape them or something. Who is held responsible?
These current “AI” implementations could easily harm a person if they had a robot body. And unlike a car it’s hard to blame it on the owner, if the owner is the one being harmed.
You can frame the "unpaid voluntary labor" as "creative work" and it would start making a whole lot of sense. "Creative work thrives despite being unpaid in capitalist society."
Big part of my annoyance is the term "AI" itself which you can say to mean anything, everything and nothing. It's something that's used to oversell/hype it to grab money.. which is fine. But if engineers like us can calm the crazy rhetoric down to "llms" or "text completion" "Image-gen api" that's already a leg up in thinking clearly. Like the question "is ai going to put people out of jobs" -> "is this new crazy good text completion model going to put people out of jobs" already gets us out of the weeds somewhat.
> Big part of my annoyance is the term "AI" itself which you can say to mean anything, everything and nothing.
Pretty sure that's the point now.
You're selling a "solution" not a "product". So you don't want to market AI as some nice robot that can move car doors around. You want to market AI as a vibe that fixes enterprise problems. So now all the companies that want your AI both have to pay for AI and also your time to actually build a product for their problem.
Hah financialization strikes again. Try explaining this to a person from a third world country, they would say "what are you talking about". Also they would have better health care than your average American.
Since when did naming a country for their military action signify the opinion or inclination of the majority of civic population? When newspapers report on "country A did X" it almost always means their government did X. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make
It is some sort of dehumanization. Since it got into fashion, I've noticed some colleges started to refer to companies in China as 'China'. Like as if they are dealing with Xi when procuring washers.
You are lumping together a population that doesn't necessarily agree with the actions. It creates negative attitudes towards citizens of that country (or people who look like citizens of that country).
I honestly don't think this is all that big. What we are seeing has been possible for more than 6 months now(?) with gpt4 and elevenlabs, its just put together in a nice little demo website and with what seems like a multi-modal model(?) trained on nytimes the daily episodes lol. And no i don't think this will gain all that much traction. We will keep valuing authentic human interaction more and more.
