You are currently standing on the shoulders of minorities to rise yourself above others.

If you are indeed honest about it, you can personally take a step back and promote anyone you want. Demanding it from others is just self-righteous and your intentions are questionable.

Explain the difference, please.

It would be a pretty classic ethical dilemma if they couldn't develop a cure for cancer if you deny them murdering anyone. In the other case it would only be correct to try them for murder since it would be an independent act.

Being a purely good being is impossible for any human and this fact should be clear by reading entry level literature by those that put a few more thoughts into it. Babies have narcissistic tendencies until they develop morality. But even in the case of ethics in contrast to personal morals there is ample literature that a purely reasonable and logical approach to ethics is insufficient.

Demanding people being pure and good, denying their egoistical sides can lead to quite terrible outcomes. The art is to deal with these character sides as well.

I don't have a huge group of friends but all of them have flaws like me. If you can forgive yourself, people start to believe that you can forgive others too and maybe you would make friends. Generally people that only point the finger at the smallest flaws are called self-righteous for a reason. And no, they often do not have many friends.

> the importance of calling out bigotry.

There is a thin line here. People need people like Adams to be a racist to justify themselves. If you look for flaws in everyone overstepping conventional dogmata, you would rate higher on a scale that approximates authoritarian personalities. My case here is exactly such a case as well. It is only an approximation, but it would be a delusion to ignore these tendencies in online or media discussions.

Perhaps he was racist, I didn't know him personally. He certainly was controversial and he wanted to provoke. That comes with a price. But statements with inverted skin colors are simply treated differently.

OF models make money until a certain age though. Sure, not too different to the current job market you could argue, but usually any "influencer" career today is quite short lived if you haven't a very specific niche.

In my country prostitution is legal, but I think some countries are very hypocritical here about OF.

Is the influencer career being short lived any different from an athlete

Not really. Athletes sometimes get advertising contracts, which OF models will probably not. But those athletes are probably a small minority as well.

I am no Musk fan but this "outrage" is entirely dishonest and stupid. If you have a problem with the images Grok generates, then don't use it. This is bottom of the barrel journalism and it is no wonder the story is flagged.

I don't really know what you take.

My americanism didn't land. I mean I understand you support pedophilia as long as it's cartoon or AI generated form.

No answer, yet they commented in another thread. This tells me (and you) what we needed to know.

Why should I answer, you made up your judgement from my initial comment and there was no substance in the reply. My mistake was to reply in the first place. For the record, I understood the colloquialism even if English isn't my native tongue.

True. Also Gemini is the boring model, heavily sanitised for corporate applications. At least it admits this if you press it. It fits Apple here very well.

Personally I wouldn't use it, it still belongs to an advertiser specialised on extracting user information. Not that I expect that other AI companies value privacy much higher. But clean smell also means bland smell.

I suspect you're exactly right about it being the most sanitized model.

I don't however like the idea of having Google deeply embedded in my machine and Siri will definitely be turned off when this happens. I only use Siri as an egg timer anyway.

This seems like a odd move for a company that sells privacy.

There is no US company using cloud, that could sell privacy.

Google, as the designer of the original transformer, is designer of the original "mechanism" for inserting ads into a prompt answer in realtime to the highest bidder, so it makes sense from that part too.

Given my stance about AI, I'll definitely not use it, but I understand Apple's choice. Also this choice will give them enough time to develop their infrastructure and replace parts of it with their own, if they are planning to do it.

> Not that I expect that other AI companies value privacy much higher.

Breaching privacy and using it for its own benefit is AIs business model. There are no ethical players here. Neither from training nor from respecting their users' privacy perspective. Just next iteration of what social media companies do.

I use Cursor and quickly let it run pretty wild. Claude doesn't seem to mind to extract auth info from everywhere. Cursor usually blacklists some files for AI access depending on language and environment, but Claude just queries environment variables without even simulating a bad conscience. Probably info that gets extracted by the next programmer using it. Well, whoops...

To be honest, I think this argument is FUD as well. There are some Russian accounts and there is disinformation, but this isn't the core of polarization in western democracies and Europe in particualr. And reigning in free speech is even poison in this situation, which is more complex than pointing your finger at bots.

In Europe freedom of speech is under threat from its own population, which is more and more driven by fear. This fear might not be unreasonable and has multiple sources, but it remains a bad basis for decision or policy making.

The fear is being heavily stoked by agitprop on social media.