You’d think so, right?

They’ve never needed pictures before, and they don’t need pictures now. Hell, even the iconic meme picture is taken from a video of a woman speaking normally - they just used an unflattering frame to discredit her. This isn’t a ploy to get a photo op of the left being mad, it’s another small push of the republican boundaries. Enough “joke” bills about overbearing punishments for minor offenses made by people their party doesn’t like, and they’ll be primed enough to fully support the real thing. We’re already there for a large portion of the republican base.

This is a great point. The results of an IQ test aren’t really measuring a person, they’re measuring a byproduct of that person, which is significantly less informative.

It’s important to define was “equal” is in this context. Some people hear “equal” and think they must measure exactly the same in every test, but that’s not how the word is being used in this context. It’s more that people are so varied from one person to another that no test can truly judge them well enough to differentiate them when it comes to inherent worth.

One person might measure above another in one test, but there are surely many others where the results would be flipped. There are so many different things you could test a person on that in the end none of them really matter; any one measurement is like trying to figure out what an extinct animal looked like from a single tiny piece of a fossil.

That’s what the IQ test is doing - it’s taking one tiny piece of human intelligence, which itself is one tiny piece of what might be said to make up a person’s value, and trying to use that to extrapolate information about them that simply can’t be taken from such a 1-dimensional test. It’s not worthless, but it needs to be paired with a bunch of other tests before it can really say anything, and even then it wouldn’t say much.

Oh, I’m sure they’ll patch anything that gets exposed, absolutely. But that’s just it - there are already several examples of people using AI to do non-brand-friendly stuff, but all the developers have to do is go “whoops, patched” and everyone’s fine. They have no need to go out of their way to pay people to catch these issues early; they can just wait until a PR issue happens, patch whatever caused it, and move on.

Ah, I see. It’s true that these issues cast a negative light on AI, but I doubt most people will even hear about most of them, or even really understand them if they do. Even when talking about brand security, there’s little incentive for these companies to actually address the issues - the AI train is already full-steam ahead.

I work with construction plans in my job, and just a few weeks ago I had to talk the CEO of the company I work for out of spending thousands on a program that “adds AI to blueprints.” It literally just added a chatgpt interface to a pdf viewer. The chat wasn’t even able to actually interact with the PDF in any way. He was enthralled by the “demo” that a rep had shown him at an expo, that I’m sure was set up to make it look way more useful than it really was. After that whole fiasco, I lost faith that the people in charge of whether or not AI programs are adopted will actually do their due diligence to ensure they’re actually helpful.

Having a good brand image only matters if people are willing to look.

I highly doubt that OpenAI or any other AI developer would see any real repercussions, even if they had a security hole that someone managed to exploit to cause harm. Companies exist to make money, and OpenAI is no exception; if it’s more profitable to release a dangerous product than a safe one, and they won’t get in trouble for it, they’ll likely have no issues with releasing their product with security holes.

Unfortunately, the question can’t be “should we be charging them for this?” Nobody is going to force them to pay, and they have no reason to do it on their own. Barring an entire cultural revolution, the question instead must be “should we do it anyway to prevent this from being used in harmful ways?” And the answer is yes. Our society is designed to maximize profits, usually for people who already have money, so if you’re working within the confines of that society, you need to factor that into your reasoning.

Companies have long since decided that ethics is nothing more than a burden getting in the way of their profits, and you’ll have a hard time going against the will of the companies in a capitalist country.

If it comes down to it, I’ll split the cost with you. If we can’t get socialized medicine the way it’s meant to be, we’ll make it ourselves!

I don’t know much about Helium, so I’m a bit confused… What’s to stop us from purifying grade 4 further into 4.7 and beyond besides cost? If the only thing stopping us is cost, then it’s not inaccurate to say that, regardless of grade, the non-renewable element of Helium is being used in frivolous ways because it makes more money to find profitable ways to use the lower-grade helium than to actually further purify and conserve it for more important usage.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: when a company does something that shows it doesn’t have its customers’ best interests in mind, it’s imperative that it be immediately and wholly abandoned.

Companies have long since learned that we’ll ignore major red flags for the sake of convenience, and at this point they’re not even trying to hide the flags - they’re proudly flying them and laughing as we continue to give them business.

Ah, the enshittification of enshittification.

I don’t have a dog in the fight either, but what difference does that make? I’m a human with compassion for other humans - I care as much about their issues as I care about my own, and I don’t want them to be tied down by prohibitions that don’t make sense. A change can always be undone if found to be problematic; the apathy toward change is what really needs to be overcome.

Every generation looks at the next one and thinks it’s weird and inferior - humans as a whole tend to believe their own experiences are the best, most logical way of doing things, which is something we need to keep in mind; the status quo is almost certainly not currently optimal, and we should be looking for ways to change it even as our own preferences nag at us to keep it the same.

You’re saying we don’t know what such a change will cause - that’s called a narrative. Not a good or a bad thing - just the opinion you’ve chosen to defend. The bad thing is when the arguments you use to defend it don’t hold up to scrutiny.

It’s possible, sure, but nobody’s playing scientist. There are plenty of people around the world that allow exposed breasts and still function. There is no epidemic of sexual deviancy from exposed breasts in any of those societies. France can have nude beaches where woman are free to walk around topless and there aren’t scores of men hiding in the bushes. You’re acting like this is all hypothetical, but we already know what society looks like without a meaningless ban on exposed breasts - it just doesn’t fit your narrative.

Jesus, dude - my whole point is that exposed breasts shouldn’t be equated to porn, and the fact that they are is only a stronger reason to allow them to be free right now, to undo that association as soon as possible. A woman choosing to go out to get her mail without a top on shouldn’t be equated to a peep show. A woman choosing to play video games on twitch without a bra shouldn’t be equated to a strip show. Yes, the current generation of kids will view it as porn, because they haven’t seen it outside of porn, which they have already seen, no doubt. It was so easily accessible on the internet that I’d seen my fair share of it before I was out of elementary school in 2002, and it’s only gotten even more prevalent. It’s an issue, sure, but to let it be the reason not to allow something that shouldn’t be equated to porn in the first place is ridiculous.

If breasts are allowed freely in public spaces, it won’t be very long before they stop attracting horny boys any more than well-fitting clothing already does. Again, the effect that breasts currently have on boys is already too much - they shouldn’t be making men salivate by simply being exposed - they’re just breasts, and those in other cultures that have breasts exposed on a regular basis don’t have that issue.

As do you, insinuating hormones making people want to do things is reason enough to expect them to do it. Society relies upon people having the self control to not behave based solely on the way their body tells them to, and instead to behave as society deems appropriate. People want to take things, to hurt others when they feel hurt, and to have sex with people they’re attracted to, but for us to live together, people need to have control over that. If they don’t, they need to be taught, and if society deems something inappropriate that shouldn’t be, we need to change society to allow for that act.

A horny teenage boy better learn to keep his hands to himself. I don’t give a shit what he feels compelled to do, and neither should any woman who happened to set him off.

By using her body sexually. Are you really so unfamiliar with seeing people naked that you think it’s the nakedness itself that’s supposed to be sexual? Have you never seen the difference between a woman taking off her bra because it’s stuffy and a woman taking off her bra because she wants sex? There’s “Yup, it’s her naked body.” and then there’s “Hell yeah, her naked body!” You just go ravenous any time your SO is naked around you, ever?

Your “non-sequitur” is trying insinuate that a person’s innate sexual orientation toward certain genders mirrors an innate sexual response to certain body parts, which I don’t disagree with. I find women beautiful, and in the right circumstances, I have a sexual response to that beauty. The difference lies between simple attraction and horniness.

I’m attracted to a beautiful woman wearing clothes that compliment her beauty. Do I immediately get a hard on? No. Do I become unable to function as a result of seeing her? No. Whatever reaction I have toward her beauty is my own circumstance to handle - she is under no obligation to change herself based on my reaction. I’m attracted to her, but seeing women wearing well-fitting clothes is a normal part of my day, so I don’t find it overtly sexual. It can become sexual if the woman starts flirting with me, for example, but just wearing nice clothes doesn’t make me horny, because most women wear nice clothes simply because they want to.

I see my wife topless all the time, and while I think she’s beautiful, I don’t get horny at every sight of her, nor should I. Most of the time she just doesn’t want to deal with putting a shirt on - she’s not trying to turn me on, and I’m not getting tuned on. This is a normal example a woman comfortable with being topless in a non-sexual situation, and a man, used to seeing that woman topless, not having a strong reaction to it. This is how all men, regardless of sexual orientation, would see breasts if women were as comfortable not wearing a shirt around men as my wife is around me. If my wife were to start teasing me and trying to turn me on, I would start getting horny, because that’s the appropriate time for a person to have a sexual response to another person’s body.

No, it’s not. People at nude beaches or at nudist colonies aren’t walking around with erections all day. African communities where women don’t wear tops don’t have guys jerking off whenever they get a chance. The sexualization of breasts in our culture is a product of our association with breasts as a purely sexual object, and the viewing of them as a purely sexual act. The way that stops being a thing is by allowing them to exist in non-sexual contexts, and teaching a new generation that they are just like any other body part.

If a girl nonchalantly takes off her top while going about her day today, it will be viewed as a sexual thing, because anyone who sees will have only seen such an act in sexual contexts. If, for several years, women all around the US are empowered to nonchalantly take off their tops whenever feel like it, it will become a common, non-sexualized act, because it will be associated more with everyday life than with what people do behind closed doors.