I’ve been keeping abreast of it, and frankly I’m not surprised because of how much denial got pushed across social media so damn effectively. The whole Trump support thing was handled with so much damage control that it was almost surreal.

Surely the simple counterexample (“slavery is inevitable”) doesn’t bring your entire philosophy down.

Well, perhaps it does.

That’s a lot of text that doesn’t address my core question of: why can’t Proton just not use the slop box?

Literally nobody is making them . Their CEO could toss their silly manifesto. There’s no guaranteed payout from this, and if anything it’s hurting their brand. “Because capitalism” doesn’t mean anything either, that’s just a completely dead-end cliche. Slavery was part of capitalism too. Surely you’d not argue in favor of using it because it was inevitable.

You can have an opinion all day about inevitability, but I hope it’s not just a baseless one.

It’s not a false dichotomy? Proton couldn’t help but use the Orphan Crushing Machine?

Why?

People want security from their product, not slop. There is literally nothing “inevitable” about using it. They can just choose to not.

You weren’t talking about fixing anything. You gave a defeatist, false dichotomy of “accept this thing” or “total revolution”.

The reason people chose Proton was with the expectation it could simply choose not to shove slop into its products , which is an option you omit.

The Orphan Crushing Machine isn’t bad because it’s helmed by Altman. It’s an inherently bad thing, and it attracts bad people to it like flies.

Curious how AI policies like this tend to be red flags for BS leadership. In this case, the two are absolutely inseparable.

Maybe it “can” be used ethically, like Theranos’ blood machine “can” detect every disease.

No, Andy Yen supported the entire Republican party, including praising JD Vance in particular.

And he used the official Proton Team account across multiple platforms to relay this information to people.

other than the originator of the idea

The word does not belong to the person who “originated” (labeled) it. I’m sorry you don’t like the modern usage and have chosen to die on that hill, but the rest of us are here on the internet, not in the 19th century.

I’m sorry you refuse to make progress.

Fishface, I linked you to a particular part of the article. Did you miss it by mistake?

Here is the part you failed to read:

The Panopticon […] must be understood as a generalizable model of functioning ; a way of defining power relations in terms of the everyday life of men. No doubt Bentham presents it as a particular institution, closed in upon itself. […] But the Panopticon must not be understood as a dream building

If you are able to scroll down even further and continue reading, you’ll also discover workplace surveillance is considered a Panopticon… Even though it apparently fits into your definition of something that is “circumventable”, wherever you pulled that from.

You might want to take a quick look at Wikipedia, because you are trying to use inaccurate distinctions.

while imprisoned

No, it’s not placed in a prison, it’s about the structure of a surveillance society.

I’m sorry, do you understand that you are repeating the definition of the panopticon, but say you don’t understand how a panopticon is a panopticon?

The Panopticon works by making you worry you are always going to be surveiled even if there’s a statistically small chance you are.

That’s the joke.

Not sure why the Lemmy Privacy Community didn’t quite understand it, besides the obvious

That means less than 0.02% of those encounter a device search.

Grok, how does the Panopticon work?

If I use AI…Is that AI?

I’d say yes, lol

But the article is about AI-generated images, so I believe anything that gets spat out from the result of a prompt (even a prompt with an image input) should be tagged. Starting with the biggest companies, of course.

It’s absolutely people’s business whether they support the public face of a public company giving money to a public political party

Bezos was one investor, not the owner