Ernest

yes! boycotting is collective action, if you individually stop buying a thing that (arguably) isn’t boycotting

I think OP is trying to say that we cannot let “AI” launder the responsibility that real humans have for their actions.

The point (as I understand it) of “guns don’t kill people” is that it is patently absurd to imply that “tools” are wholly neutral implements. The quote is trying to hold the “tool” accountable. While it’s making a seemingly contradictory point to OP, I think it’s more that both can be true at once–OP is trying to highlight the specific problem with “the AI is the one doing all the naughty things”, because Sam Altman et al. would certainly like everyone to think so. I totally agree that “AI” is not merely a “tool” (in the sense of the neutrality so-implied), but that is a separate point.

(re-reading what I just wrote… it kinda sounds like clanker speak?? I swear I’m a real human)

idk if this is the case here but on a firmware level, interfacing with these camera chips almost always requires an NDA that they’ll only sign with very large minimum orders

we both thought of the same article haha

I saw the RFC for IPv8 recently

nitpick, but I would say “an RFC”, as there’s been a number of these over the years

you’ve gotten a couple responses so far, but I think the central issue is that “complexity” isn’t the problem with IPv6 (and one could certainly argue that IPv6 is actually simpler)–the problem is compatibility. This article lays out the issue very well, and also links to this article (which is a more specific look at the IPv8 proposal you refer to). Both point to the same conclusion, which is that fundamentally–on first principles–existing hardware does not know how to handle the upgrade, which will require some sort of dual-stacking, which is the issue IPv6 currently has. (Not its technical merit.)

deleted by creator

in an ideal world, ipv6 would solve that problem…

😔

one of my favorite recent shows ❤️