The original Bloomberg article is quite informative.

California was the only state in Bloomberg’s review that did not use advertising trackers, having removed them last year after being informed of the security risk by nonprofit news organizations CalMatters and The Markup. A separate Markup analysis of 19 state sites last year also flagged data exposures in several states that later changed some of their settings.

According to Edwards, one reason so many websites continue to share sensitive user data is that website operators deploy tracking tools without fully understanding how they work. “The onus is on them to do it safely,” he said. “You can’t protect something that you don’t understand.”

If anyone has looked into Google ads at all, the first thing they try to get you to do is install a bunch of trackers on your website. In order to do that you have to check a box that says you have a privacy policy which discloses certain information. If you try to tell them you do not have that and do not want to do tracking they will outright lie about what they are getting you to do. They tell you to just check the box and that it doesn’t matter and then will tell you that it doesn’t track anything. One would hope that the people doing these sites for the government would know better, but they may also just not care. They may just be using a standard SEO suite and no one bothered to mention that maybe they shouldn’t on either the government side or the company side.

Oh, for sure. And I really should’ve known better. No offense taken.

Yes, but also I have to draw a line somewhere. I have a daily backup process. Some data is backed up to multiple places. I have backups of my backups. I cannot ensure that all three of the daily backups I run are fully restorable. I would love to know with 100% certainty that they all execute perfectly, but at the end of the day I have to trust the tools and processes I put in place for backups. A yearly checkup is probably more than sufficient for my purposes. I’m sure for certain businesses or sectors they need to be more on top of things, but I could manage just fine if all of it disappeared tomorrow. It wouldn’t be awesome for me, but it’d be manageable.

Not to give myself more credit than I deserve, but I did test them upon setup, and had restored from backup 2 years ago. I didn’t have any ongoing checks other than to ensure a backup happened. I have since instituted yearly checks of the backups themselves, but I did feel dumb when I realized how vulnerable my data was.

I don’t want to sound like a know it all here because I recently was reminded by a nice Lemmy person to actually TEST my backups, but damn. Every part of that is so dumb. I also have backups stored by a different company in addition to locally storing really important info. If your stuff is hosted and backed up by the same people, what happens if your account is randomly suspended or hacked or some other issue (like ai)?

Less women are in fields like electrical, plumbing, and construction which are harder to automate and more are in things like customer service and reception. I think she’s just saying things, but I can understand why someone may have said that.

AI promises consistency

Lol. Along what vectors? Certainly not between racial groups or genders. Remember to include “don’t be racist” in your prompt. I’m sure that’ll fix it.

If you want the same outcome every time all you need is a form. No AI needed. Hand people a flowchart and file the end result. If it’s more complicated than that AI should not be responsible. If it’s less complicated then AI is not needed. There’s some things that are required to go through the court that may not make sense to anymore, like came changes in my opinion, but those shouldn’t be offloaded to AI for approval, they should be moved away from the court.

No please. Do not reward this kind of posting. People are just going to flood the fediverse with this kind of engagement farming. If they want to get eyes on their content they are welcome to post it in the relevant communities, ideally with a disclaimer that they made it.

Reddit was filled with posts like: “no one cares about my neurodivergent differently abled nieces art project 🥺👉👈”

Let’s not encourage that here.

Devastating that Apple did this and still manages to have the worst AI out there. Was really hoping it was so far behind because it only used “ethical” or licensed data. I guess it’s bad just because. That’s extra embarrassing.

This person is just posting slop. I’m not sure if trolling/farming, but any interaction will just feed their weird delusions or bait. Just ignore would be my suggestion.

This person is using AI and posting slop. I’m not clicking on their stuff but their post history says they made a video about this stupidity previously, so I don’t know that I’d trust them.

I don’t necessarily support this, but I feel like this at least adds a barrier to a single person setting up hundreds of bot accounts easily. Similar to locking your doors, it just adds friction to those that would otherwise not put a lot of effort in. People can still break into your house/run a bot farm, but this makes it just that much more difficult. Again, I don’t really support doing this, and it’s definitely not being done for user’s benefit, but it will likely have some impact on botting.

Guy work in IT and spent 100k to pay devs to make an app so people can talk to his tuned ChatGPT? I hope anyone who has hired him checks his work. That does not bode well for his work product.

Another case from the article:

“I still use AI, but very carefully,” he says. “I’ve written in some core rules that cannot be overwritten. It now monitors drift and pays attention to overexcitement. There are no more philosophical discussions. It’s just: ‘I want to make a lasagne, give me a recipe.’ The AI has actually stopped me several times from spiralling. It will say: ‘This has activated my core rule set and this conversation must stop.’

What’s weird to me is they now recognize AI will lie to you but somehow think they can prompt it not to? Your rules can be “overwritten” because they do not exist to ChatGPT. It does not know what words mean.

This was only done because the editors pushed to minimize AI involvement. There’s a comment here already mentioning that: https://lemmy.world/comment/22826863

The images I am referring to are likely distinct from the ones in the title as they are from his iPhone and Google is who reported him. Regardless in the article it says the detective looked at one of the Google reported images. Whether they just referenced a known hash I don’t know for sure, but I think it’s pretty well known that FAANG scan basically all images for CSAM nowadays.

The detective alleges that that photograph and others she examined appeared to be stored in a folder on the iPhone titled “Girls I Drugged And Raped.”

This link was shared on Lemmy just recently about this book. I watched some of the persons other videos, and though we have different tastes it seems like they can identify “bad” books.

https://youtu.be/GbeKTa5xhZo

Not sure how I didn’t hear of this already. Apparently it’s not necessarily a breathalyzer, but the proposals include a camera facing the driver to monitor them and passive monitoring of the air in the car.

I don’t drunk drive and barely even drink, but that’s horrifying. I can’t believe this went under the radar for me.

More garbage that is going to break and cost thousands of dollars to fix in addition to all the violations of privacy. Cars are already advertising to people. Can you imagine if they put a camera inside the vehicle? Why not invest in public transit? That’s a great way to decrease impaired drivers of all stripes as well as help people in general. All this does is funnel more money into auto makers. I am so upset that this is the first I’m hearing of it.

Wow. What a terrible idea. There was a woman who was sent to jail in a different state for several months and lost her house, car, and dog because AI misidentified her and cops didn’t give a fuck. Cops should need a warrant for facial recognition at the very least, if it’s allowed at all. Can’t wait for “give me a smile” to be codified into law.

What a completely accurate description. The nuance of the issues being subtle yet catastrophic is always the part that I find the funniest, because how are they so incapable of seeing how that might be a universal issue? Thank you for the chuckle.