I found two, and happy is not part of their emotions.

I feel sorry for your daughter. 16 was very late to get one as far back as the late 90s - I was very glad to get one at 14 as it meant I wasn’t quite such a weirdo outcast.

That is not how the legal system works in the UK or USA. That said, I am worried that we are going quickly in that direction.

To me this is all insufferably pompous. Drop the big talking and marketing and I would pay more attention. The quality of the idea and implementation should speak a lot more for itself.

Fair criticism.

I’m trying to be explicit about the constraints rather than persuasive about the outcome. If the ideas or implementation don’t stand on their own yet, that’s useful signal — I’d rather expose that than hide it behind polish.

Appreciate you calling it out.

No it’s not. It’s totally conceivable that the (perceived) quality of targeting data would contribute to the decision of whether to run a mission at all, and if so how extensively.

isn’t that essentially true of any technology that reduces the civilian casualties of a conflict?

The companies involved definitely want you to think that part of their noble goal is reducing civilian casualties. As far as I can see, though, that is pure propaganda.

You can reduce civilian casualties by reducing the number of people considered civilians.

i am not saying that is the case here, all i am saying is that your argument would apply to any technology that lets you better differentiate/target enemies vs. civilians, which suggests to me it is overbroad.

You are reading perhaps more generality than I intended. To be clear, I am talking about the present greater-Anglo-American military-industrial complex, driven by present ideologies, in which the distinction between “enemy” and “civilian” itself is extremely debatable.

Absolutely.

And that the people who stand to benefit the most from another war might want to filter/target that data in a way to make that more probable?

I mean, I know it's a stretch. Especially with how benevolent our current class of billionaires are. But just imagine a guy who thinks money is more important than anything else. I know... another stretch. lol.

Because powerful interests are trying to hijack human creative pursuits in the interest of profit. None of the images in the post are art.

This kind of comment mystifies me. What’s the value of it, what are you trying to say? Are you proud of your ignorance, or trying to ridicule, or what? What is alarming about coming across something you’re not familiar with? J and APL have Wikipedia articles that serve as a basic enough introduction. Why not educate yourself first?

Boundless optimisation is something we should be resisting, at least in our current economic system.

Don't want businesses to communicate with me, thanks. So entitled!

Wasn't the refrigerator trying to communicate with her the best way it could?

No wonder people could think it's trying to do that, because it's true.

>mistakes smart fridge ad for psychotic episode (reddit.com)

OTOH, when you put it like that it would also be easy to get the idea that your fridge was the one having the psychotic episode ;)

If you change words in a text then the meaning changes. Even if all ads are speech (I don't think they are, but I don't need to argue that), not all speech is advertisement. You can say your piece in one of many other forms that doesn't hijack my attention.

I didn't say that all speech is ads, I said that ads are speech.

?? I know you didn’t. I don’t think my post is hard to understand. The point of freedom of speech is the free expression of ideas and opinions. You can do that in many ways. You could write a book. You could email the editor of a news website. You could write a song. In my ideal society, though, you would not be allowed to put it on a massive billboard that everyone has to look at all the time. I don’t think this curtails anyone’s freedom of speech.