When the dev cycles to product get a lot tighter then I will share in the fear but from my understanding creating the product (i.e. its adaptability) is still enormous effort.
It breaks most programmers hard, those who emphasize a world of rule-based constructs, unless they lean into it _even more_
It’s like a compiler that is only advisory and you have to test the app and handle every possible failure every time. Results in different software at model & controller levels, by far controller.
But tractable.
I happen to be on leave and had 2-3 weeks to pour into it, it now emits json with 3 sets of: body text, title, art prompt => art, and suggested searches. A live magazine on whatever topic you want
I don't think that training a GPT on GPT output is likely to be helpful. If nothing else, it's going to be like a human getting stuck in a filter bubble - it's not going to improve correspondence with reality.
> serious question, does free speech extend to doxing
Boy, what a complicated and serious question. We should form a committee to discuss exactly where our community places reasonable boundaries and adjudicate blurry edge cases. Who could have predicted that a policy like "if it's legal, it's allowed" would lead to problems? Surely no one with a few dozen billion dollars to set on fire would be that unbelievably stupid.
So Elon should then take it up with the famously quick and efficient US Government, just like the rest of us who are harmed by speech that the USG has not declared illegal. If he suffers any harm in the meantime, then well, that's just the cost of Free Speech! Sorry, Elon! Hooray, Free Speech!
right, I'll meet the annoying persistent sarcasm with some more. We should go back to the old twitter! Where woke 30 year old ivy league graduates get to decide the conversational overton window! That was so much better than aspiring to this free speech garbage!
That's the point, right? You obviously can't fall back on "anything legal is allowed." That's a stupid policy and nobody actually wants it, as the actions this thread is discussing proves. So someone has to draw the boundaries. I'd much rather have a group of experts debating & making the hard decisions than a single sociopathic billionaire. Yes, they'll get it wrong sometimes, and that sucks, but it's the least-bad possible arrangement.
For the first 20-ish years of my life, a physical copy of the telephone directory listing almost all local subscribers (including my parents and by extension me), was physically posted to every subscriber's house.
Some people did indeed abuse that knowledge, but it was rare.
A few people were, by request, "ex-directory" and not listed, but again, that was rare.
Most people were not only absolutely fine with their phone number being public info, it was more useful then than a publicly-known email address is now.
What a coincidence. I too lived during the era of open directories... and it was horrifyingly stupid. We got our number delisted as soon as possible because we didn't need random idiots calling us at all hours because they thought it was funny. I don't care that other people were fine with being listed. People have a right to privacy, and moreover a right not to be stalked and harassed. We don't tolerate people posting each others' personal information, public or otherwise, to stalk and harass one another *ON ANY PLATFORM*. That doesn't change just because it's someone who's "a public figure" or, more accurately, someone you don't like. Either the rules exist for everyone or not at all... and if it's not at all then drop the pretense and just admit you want to hurt him any way you can.
Who's this 'we' and why would random idiots be calling you at all hours? There was nothing horrifyingly stupid about it, that was how people got in touch with each other before it was convenient to do so via the internet.
I don't think that's true, most cases of doxxing happen with publicly available information. But I guess you could argue doxxing isn't really "illegal."
Most doxing involves using publicly available information to harass others... and yet that behavior is frowned upon everywhere. I don't think anyone here honestly believes that account was used for anything other than to encourage the stalking and harassment of Elon Musk because the account owner simply doesn't like him. I also don't think anyone here seriously believes that stalking and harassing people is "free speech". I do believe people here are letting their class bias show.
How does flight data encourage stalking and harassment? The account is run by the same person who tracks the flights of other wealthy and notable people as well. Why weren’t those taken down?
I am genuinely interested in what you think the difference between those two things is. I don't see how "the white pages" is any more safe or secure than "everyone"...
It isn't. My point here being that just because something is public information does not mean you have any business circulating it specifically to encourage the stalking and harassment of others. Your freedom of speech ends short of stalking and harassing others. Lawfully contacting someone is one thing... but tracking someone's every movement is another, and you know it.
I agree that my freedom of speech ends short of stalking and harassing people! I just don't think that re-posting publicly available information qualifies as stalking or harassing. And I think it's a very big stretch to claim that it even comes close to facilitating stalking or harassing. Has Elon himself even claimed any actual negative impacts due to this information/account, or has he just expressed concerns about the possibility?
Also, "and you know it" is insulting and rude, and I don't agree with it or appreciate it.
I don't know whether I think it's free speech honestly, but I think the more relevant question here is whether Musk would consider it "free speech" to post the same type of information about someone else.
When he's not the object of the speech in question, he seems to think that things like calling people pedophiles is free speech, so he generally seems to be a free speech maximalist and I'm guessing the answer might be yes.
I don't consider a lot of things to be free speech that musk apparently does, but there's a big difference between him being a free speech maximalist in general and just supporting free speech when it's convenient.
Consider the following: The Twitter files contains a lot of private information and outs employees whom have received direct harassment.
The ElonJet account contains publicly available information on a very accessible site. This does not make a statement about Musk nor does it tell who is inside the jet at the time.
Is it? What exactly is the functional difference between Musk revealing private corporate communications to a rabid audience looking for a target? Like you didn't actually explain how it's different.
Did he publish where they lived or currently were or simply the things they said? I'm sure anyone can see the difference between these two things.
He published what they said and the reason for doing it publicly is to ensure the current administration and administrative state (which would be the people at the heart of his accusations) would also have motive to bury the information. I'd also guess that such disclosures also help distance him from any legal action.
He published who they were, when they were previously unknown. I'm sure you can understand why unmasking someone like this is a problem, correct? If you can't then I don't think you value your current anonymity enough.
Though the fact that you immediately jumped to the government conspiracy angle it seems like you've planted your feet and aren't going to move. It's not doxxing because it's someone you agree with.
The big pyramids at Giza were built around ~2500bc in the old kingdom of egypt. After that comes the first intermediate period, then the middle kingdom of egypt, then the second intermediate period, and then in the new kingdom of egypt, towards the end this tablet is written.
(Not judging, just providing context around how old Egypt is)
