I hope people who are unemployed don't feel like they are overlooked because of the worker focus.
The concept, as you are aware, is that the majority of the population are the ones on the ground making it work and trying to make ends meet while a minority accumulate all the wealth. It's not trying to make those who aren't currently employed feel bad about themselves.
I've been so busy I didn't even notice the 2026 Victorian state election approaching at the end of the month.
A few comrades are discussing this ad, and while it does take a workerist perspective, I think that's fine for what it is and it'll probably go down well with the general population as a whole without becoming an issue for those not currently working.
This is the internet,I don't care who wrote it, I only judge arguments by their soundness.
And even then, my issue isn't with their arguments, which I haven't addressed (I don't know why you think I strawman-ed them), it's that they don't have one.
At best, they're saying that the latest AI guidelines don't cover risks the government previously identified and already took action on, pending review.
How does that contribute to the narrative that the new guidelines are incorrectly focused?
It smells of the Chewbacca's defense, unless you can enlighten me with a better reading.
It's not me, you're arguing with someone with a PhD in the area lol. The conversation only accepts articles from faculty or active PhD students.
You're also strawmanning the author's position, but if you're one of the P(doom) dorks you should be all about steelmanning.
There is no intelligence behind language models. They don't even have statefulness.
I think you're mixing up automated decision making with AI.
Everything these days is branded as 'AI' as a marketing gimmick, even if there's no real intelligence behind it.
So if you want human oversight over everything, everywhere, all the time, then no, the latest guidelines don't help in that regard.
But to dismiss all addressed concerns as
stupid nerd rapture critihype stuff.
Is to be willfully ignorant, and not constructive.
The prime minister’s announcement focuses on “AI safety”, “AI security” and “frontier” AI models and companies. But Australians may remain unprotected from known AI harms that – though less spectacular – are already widespread and serious.
Nearly half of the recommendations are about increasing Australia’s preparedness for AI-related cyber incidents.
The recommendations make sense. The review is right to emphasise the role of building capacity, relationships, and cooperation. Effective and responsive AI regulation must go beyond the government simply issuing and enforcing rigid rules.
Despite these strengths, the government seems to be taking a narrow view of what “AI safety” means.
AI and algorithmic systems are increasingly integrated into important services such as healthcare, insurance, housing, finance, employment, education and social security.
We’ve seen Robodebt harm hundreds of thousands of Australians. Sexist AI-enabled job recruitment tools, AI-enabled stadium security systems that let a gun into the Melbourne Cricket Ground, racist policing algorithms, and AI meal-planners that recommend poisonous recipes are just a few among thousands of examples of everyday AI harms and risks.
As the Medicare incident showed, risks also emerge from interactions between software systems, organisations and real world contexts. It doesn’t make sense to just focus on powerful AI models out of context.
Seems pretty clear to me. Stuff like robodebt killed people are severely injured who knows how many. Nothing about systems like that, or say facial rec injuring privacy and falsy accusing people is being covered.
Instead it's about the stupid nerd rapture critihype stuff.
The average person is more likely to be hurt by automated resume sorting discarding theirs because of their name or variations in how they write due to racism encoded in the training data than some "rogue" chatbot pwning email.
Yes, we are focused on the right risks.
The article seems to believe not, but I can't seem to find any strong justification for their argument.
I never take how to vote cards. I go in with my own prepared list. Sometimes finding meaningful statements from some candidates isn't easy, sometimes they are well meaning, but looneytunes. It's usually easy to get first and last, the tricky bit is sorting out the middle.
Or, the other way to interpret it is they have no idea at all.
Stop voting single issue
accept that election day is the start point of developing and expanding policy, not the end point
but who are we kidding, people will vote to maintain high house prices/negative gearing and against the COL increases
I couldn’t find flaw with the Greens making this call in Queenslands Stafford by election (which elected a Labor MP on preferences) and I can’t find it here.
They'll probably wriggle out of it.
I don't think it is "unforgivable". I reckon it might be unforgivable if Labor had preferred One Nation over the Greens; but to just not give any preference at all is... not really that bad in my opinion.
On the one hand, I think voters should never use how-to-vote cards at all. Voters should build their own understanding of which parties align with their values, and vote accordingly. And so Labor not suggesting any preferences seem fair enough to me.
But on the other hand, a party's listed preference is a strong indicator of how that party sees itself in the political landscape. Its an indicate of how their values align with the values of others, and hence an indicate of the parties values and priorities. So although I don't think voters should follow the how-to-vote cards, they can be useful sources of information. And in that sense, Labor saying "we have no preference regarding the other parties" is effectively a way of saying they agree with One Nation just as much as they agree with the Greens. And that could be seen as unforgivable if interpreted in that way.
Scratch a liberal: a fascist bleeds.
My comment specifically implied holding the company liable and responsible...
Legally, for "the company" to engage in hacking someone on payroll would've had to intentionally instruct it to do so.
This is an airtight case for gross/criminal negligence, as the company publicly advertises the dangers of these tools, and their capability to be weaponised in cybersecurity, while choosing to operate with extremely lax sandboxing and isolation.
Does seem the entrenched powers want to undermine the Greens as much as possible.
I hope there's a lot of Greens volunteers in Prahran talking to people.
I 'memba having to hover over links to make sure you weren't getting goatse'd.
(Do NOT look this up if you don't know the reference. You have been warned)
Yeah!
We reported it to admin@gov.au!
(Because you dicks didn't tell us what, where, who or how we were meant to report anything!)
PS: Not having a go at parent poster, they are 100% correct and upvoted!
I resemble that comment.
Can’t be socialled if there’s no social life!
"Their product" didn't "engage" in shit. It's a text generator.
The company engaged in illegal hacking. By hooking up a randomized text generator to a Linux terminal with internet access and letting it to generate console commands unsupervised.
LLMs are a very powerful tool. But we can't let the companies using those tools escape responsibility by giving LLMs any perceived agency.
take the fuckers to court
Mandatory reporting of AI risk is likely to be pretty useless, considering how poorly most people understand how LLMs work.. Will be interesting to see how they try to enforce it..
my cunning plan to avoid such attack vectors is to have no friends, that way i know a link from someone even claiming to be a friend is to be avoided.
jokes aside, i don't use any Meta products either but to be fair, it's an attack vector because it's popular.
They already reported it to you
This is the part where you're meant to do something
Or... Ya know... You could charge them with criminal negligence as their product engaged in illegal hacking from their own corporate "controlled" environment.