EarlKing

The word "relying" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence. The point I'm making is that "relying" on human experts, as opposed to AI experts, is the same thing: you're giving up your autonomy for the illusion of productivity, and in the process courting disaster. To put it another way: Every single one of you who downvoted me has clearly never read Frank Herbert's Dune. Machine-think is not limited to machines.

The ironic part is that this same guy undoubtedly relies on the expertise of millions of human agents and sees absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Sounds like the OpenBSD model to me. Actually, if I'm honest, that's really just the Freeware model of Andrew Fluegelman. You get the program, the source code, the right to make modifications and release them, just don't expect upstream to incorporate them. (If confused, go look up PC-TALK.)

Whether you're stowing, picking, diverting, or working the dock... you literally just grab someone to cover your position for a few minutes. That's it. There are process assistants present who can literally do that if they have to. There's no reason to deny a pregnant worker this except "This is making my day harder because I can't run my aisles at an absolute minimum head count and still stand around with my cart pretending to do useful work".

The only real case I could see where grabbing someone to cover you while you take a bathroom break might not work is, for example, someone working as a yard marshal... since that's not something everyone gets trained for, so the pool of replacements is smaller (including among process assistants).

So unless this worker was working the yard... there's not a lot of reason to deny them bathroom breaks... and that goes whether they're pregnant or not honestly.

...while looking like a discount Lex Luthor.

When it comes to a company known to hire union-busters rather than deal with a burgeoning union in good faith? Yes. Yes they do.

Yeah, there's no question this one's over-the-top when it comes to trying to gross out the reader, but I'd like to think people can overlook that.

For everyone downvoting: It's literally a story about the creation of mankind's first artificial general intelligence, Prime Intellect, and the consequences of that discovery.

"I come here to code GNU Hurd and chew bubblegum, and I got a whole lotta bubblegum..."

Clearly the writers should be subject to a Voight-Kampff test just to be sure.

Fun fact: Duke Nukem Forever shipped before GNU Hurd.

I suppose this is a healthier hobby than stealing hotel towels and ashtrays.

> How is this not obvious to everyone?

Because everyone's thinking around intelligence is incredibly muddled by a variety of factors, and no one is particularly motivated to actually correct anyone's mistaken notions on the matter.

> stopping child sexual abuse

> suddenly touches everyone

..............I see what you did there.

Allow me to introduce everyone here to a new definition (original content, donut steel):

qontouria, n. The feeling of having your work passed off as someone else's.

If only those 1.3 million signatories pledged to never buy from a company that Kills Games again...

Simple: These aren't nerds. These are grifters selling you a product using product packaging (nerdface) that you find appealing. Enjoy your purchase.

The deep desert. As far from the pyons as the sands go.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if somebody spots Shai-hulud out in the Sahara I'm outta here.

Attesting who is responsible is more of that "bullshit most of us didn't ask for". I'm not interested in identifying myself so some cretin can know whether I am, or am not, an AI... particularly when the vast majority of posters on any platform act like NPCs anyway.

If they were truly this accurate at identifying sources of bot traffic, you'd think they'd be better at blocking them without inconveniencing the rest of us.

Jacobsen v. Katzer established that source code, i.e. something other than money, could be used as valuable consideration for perfecting a license into a contract. The terms of service you agree to when you join Facebook, Twitter, or what have you, similarly involves an exchange of non-monetary consideration for services rendered. Both user and service provider are in a legally-binding contract. If a service provider then bans a user for no reason, or any reason, they open themselves to litigation. None of this is controversial. I really do recommend you talk to somebody who's familiar with contract law before continuing.

That's not rhetoric. It's well established that consideration does not have to consist of money. A prime example of this was in Jacobsen v. Katzer where the exchange of source code was deemed valuable consideration for purposes of perfecting a license into an enforceable contract. You might want to consult an attorney or at least read up on the basics of contract law before continuing.

The user and Service are bound by their terms of service which is perfected into a contract by the valuable exchange of their eyeballs against advertising for the provision of the service in question. Valuable consideration does not have to mean "money". So, no, they don't get to ban people on a whim.

It's not 'whataboutism' when you're impugning their authority while seemingly have none of your own... or, in the alternative, even if it is, it's quite valid in this instance.

Verification tells you that a human being is behind it, not that a human being made it.

We'll have to take your word on that since it looks like it's being hugged to death. I can't even get an archive of it to take the pressure off.

Yeah, I'm just getting a 404 clicking through this.

> Google should capture all your calls and check if there could be scamming going on, right?

If you're dumb enough to own a Pixel then arguably they're doing something just as bad.

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/1097qm0/manual...

Right. Just like they let you turn off those stupid games that keep popping up no matter how many times you tell them you're not interested.