DeusExMachina

> As someone who is aggressively pro AI

But then

> I've also noticed how awful everything is to read lately

> A site I read stories on has been flooded with AI generated content, all of it terrible

I'm not taking either side, but I'm curious about how you reconcile being aggressively pro something that, in your own estimation, is making everything terrible.

Are they integrating it well with AI overviews then? It looks like they haven't found a way to monetize it yet.

> I didn't even realize I had signed up for a one-year commitment.

I think that's handled by the rule. From their webpage:

> Companies must clearly explain subscription terms to you

Basing layoff decisions on citizenship is likely illegal, and that's why no company does that. It does not mean, however, that they can't do it by proxy. If you lay off people above a certain salary and justify it as cost cutting, yoiu are likely targeting mostly nationals. The few H1B caught in the net are just collateral damage. Then, you can hire imported workers that are willing to work for far less just to have a chance to come to America.

There are a thousand steps between models generating machine code and the future you envision, none of which is necessary, especially since there will be humans involved that will prefer alternatives.

> Cancelling visas or deporting them will not get American workers their jobs back.

When Microsoft lays off 6.000 American workers and then refills those positions with H1Bs, I would argue that cancelling visas will definitely bring those jobs back.

That might be true if you are the one exposing fraud and you are trying to reach the largest audience. That might also not work at all because when something is trying to appeal to everyone, it appeals to no one.

On the other hand, there is an equal amount of close-mindedness, and sometimes malice, from the side that demands "a better source" because they don't like where the information comes from, regardless of its veracity.

That doesn't really matter though, and it just makes the argument stronger.

This is a technology with an inherent tendency of making up false information AND we don't even understand how or why.

That's enough not to entrust these sytems with critical decisions that could start a war.

Isn't "deal with the difference" just renaming the file?

What AI reviews? I thought AI needed to be bound by Bend laws.

The AI either knows what the user wants perfectly and is able to prevent problems, or is a rougue agent that needs to be bound by laws to not misbehave. You can't have both.

> LAW: "the sum of all balances in this contract must be zero"

What prevents AI from writing an arbitrary calculation that makes sure that sum is always zero while breaking a whole other bunch of assumptions?

If the answer is more laws, then this does not address the parent comment.

Relatedly, a friend told me that graphical design gigs dried up because everyone can make event fliers and posters with AI with results that are often better than those of designers.

Except that the UDHR is not the rule of law.

It is a mere declaration, as specified at the top of the page, that "is widely recognized as having inspired [...] the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties"

That does not make it an enforceable law. Moreover, treaties are agreements between countries, not laws, which a country can violate at will.

People might create supranational organizations like the UN or the ECHR, but that has, untimately, no enforcement power because that always belongs to sovereign countries. Violating a treaty can also lead to retaliation by other signatories or even war, but it still does not make a treaty law.

It might well be that the US has specific laws that prevent charging a citizen when they wipe their phone. But that must be a law passed by the US legislature, not a "universal declaration".