pretty sure the cringe doesn't stop there. It wouldn't surprise me if this is not the only thing that they are attempting to game and hide from their users.
The Max subscription with fake limits increase comes to mind.
kind of reminds me how they said they were increasing platform capabilities with Max and actually reduced them while charging a ton for it per month. Talk about a bait and switch. Lord help you if you tried to cancel your ill advised subscription during that product roll out as well - doubly so if you expect a support response.
Anthropic might be scammers. Unclear. I canceled my subscription with them months ago after they reduced capabilities for pro users and I found out months later that they never actually canceled it. They have been ignoring all of my support requests.. seems like a huge money grab to me because they know that they're being out competed and missed the ball on monetizing earlier.
I asked Gemini today to replace the background of a very simple logo and it refused. ChatGPT did it no problem (though it did take a long time because apparently lots of people were doing image generation).
I guess Gemini just refused because of a poor filter for sensitive content. But still, it was annoying.
yeah "possessiveness" has absolutely no basis in anything reasonable, let's villainize it too while we're pretending not to alienate anything about ourselves lol
I should have expected that my general attack on protestant Christianity's views on sex would get a sarcastic response.
And no, possessiveness in regards to other humans is honestly really bad. It may every so often feel good for a moment, in a 'they want me' sort of feel. But that has a really bad tendency to go off the rails and turn violent quickly.
There's ways to do sexuality and relationships healthy. Possessiveness, jealousy, shame, and other similar emotions aren't healthy for anyone involved.
Who cares about my tone, how about actually understanding the argument itself, which is based on science instead of your attempt to externalize your own religiosity?
I suppose you think you know better than thousands of psychologists who have explained the difference between adaptive and maladaptive. or perhaps you know better than billions of years of evolution. just because you don't understand how to bond with someone adaptively doesn't mean that there is no way to bond with someone adaptively. There's a reason why we want to make sure that our partners are actually bonded with us and trustworthy. It doesn't have anything to do with oppression. But your externalization and automatic presumption of pathology tells me a lot about what you must have experienced and what you never got to experience.
I'm not particularly fond of the whole "privilege" discourse, but this comment is a great example of somebody completely failing to understand a privilege they have. Which they share with many other people, sure,[0] but there are many people who, through no fault of their own, do need to worry about others learning about their location.
[0] Which is probably one reason why the discourse grates some. Privilege still sounds to me like it's something exclusive, like a 0.1%er thing. Naming stuff is hard.
It’s a fair point, and we should be sensitive to ill effects on the less privileged, but at some point it’s unreasonable to decry tech than is neutral or beneficial to the vast majority of people because it could possibly harm a small number of people.
The majority of people clutching pearls over the “privacy” implications of photo geolocation are at least as privileged as me, and have even less concept of what e.g. stalking victims go through than I do.
It’s just “think of the children” all over again; “I am uncomfortable with random people knowing my general vicinity” sounds weird, and “I am deeply concerned for the vulnerable people this could harm” sounds noble.
The reality is that those with serious privacy concerns aren’t posting random photos to the internet. I mean, jesus, there’s EXIF data. Hand wringing over AI is entirely performative here.
It's possible to accidentally post something, or have it swiped by many of the untrusted and untrustworthy applications on a PC or mobile device.
It's even easier to unintentionally include identifying information when intentionally making a post, whether by failing to catch it when submitting, or by including additional images in your online posting.
There are also wholesale uploads people may make automatically, e.g., when backing up content or transferring data between systems. That may end up unsecured or in someone else's hands.
Even very obscure elements may identify a very specific location. There's a story of how a woman's location was identified by the interior of her hotel room, I believe by the doorknobs. An art piece placed in a remote Utah location was geolocated based on elements of the geology, sun angle, and the like, within a few hours. The art piece is discussed in this NPR piece: <https://www.npr.org/2020/11/28/939629355/unraveling-the-myst...> (2020).
I read the "accidentally" as applying to the "identifying" not the "post", although I agree the sentence structure would suggest "accidentally" as a modifier for "post" that makes a lot less sense.
You're being intentionally dense. No, people don't accidentally post pictures but they often do post them with the intention of showing a certain thing, e.g. profile picture, something for sale, something related to hobbies, household repairs, whatever. All of thse are posted with intent to include a certain object but may include background info that the poster did not consider.
when was the last time you were social on Facebook?
and maybe threads would count if it weren't 95% filled with bots and mentally ill weirdos pretending to know quantum physics (and how dare you judge them for doing so; whether or not they know quantum mechanics is like totally subjective and your frequency is clearly too low).
The Max subscription with fake limits increase comes to mind.