I question if it's possible to do this while being unarmed. People like to meme on Americans for having guns and never using them, but they're a part of every conversation in an unspoken parenthetical. Legal discussion is allowed because there is always an alternative that no one wants to see. "We need to talk about this (or I'll shoot you)"
Propelled by an ideology advocating racial purity, extreme nationalism and perpetual war, the trend culminated in the Second World War, which killed 15 million to 20 million people in Europe
27 million died or were killed in the USSR alone. This journalist clearly knows what she's talking about.
[Palantir] attracted early investment from the US Central Intelligence Agency's venture capital arm In-Q-Tel, and won early contracts in US defense and intelligence applications of its data analytics technologies
Well, you do have an honest face...
He may be right though. Not that his software stopped anything, which I very much doubt it did, but if there had been more terror attacks, governments definitely would have used that as a reason to crack down. Not on immigrants. Not on Muslims. But on the normal population. "We have to take away all your freedoms to protect you from the people we're letting in, y'know".
AI tools is what allows the govt drones to effectively and efficiently process that huge amount of information. The data volume is so vast that was pretty much the limiting factor from the UK getting to do what they've always wanted (1984)
This is the fault of pozzed power mongering governments passing bullshit laws and restrictions on fundamental human rights, not the tools that were employed.
To be fair this basically what LLM type AIs are most suited for. When you have a tool that massively increases the capacity to directly surveil every citizen 24/7, there is some reason to be nervous.
Oh I'll agree. LLM's are an exceptionally efficient tool for gathering, collecting, and organizing that kind of data.
Most of it wouldn't be anywhere near as fucky if there were proper privacy protections for citizens, both from governments and corporations. Or if not for the attacks on VPN's and the attempts to push digital ID's.
Although even then, I do admit that AI could still be used to identify an individual (writing style analysis, any scraps of identifying info leaked from your connection) unless you maintain every security precaution imaginable every single day you use the Internet.
There is no serious way to defend yourself against this, as the Public Prosecutor will use the 'Total Toxicity Score' as his 'evidence', instead of going over all the supposedly toxic quotes.
Then there is no need to defend yourself, because the 'public prosecutor' hasn't proven his case.
These people should be jailed for life after a fair trial. Not this guy, but the 'public prosecutor' and any 'judge' who go along with it.
Your argument’s fatal flaw lies in its attempt to employ logic and reason against people who are ruled by emotion and “feminine” energy. People who smile and wave “immigrants welcome” banners as their cathedrals burn and their rape rates skyrocket, people who can barely mount a lacklustre rebuttal to JD Vance without bursting into tears on the world stage.
Weak men are the most dangerous, and Europe is infested with (and ruled by) them.
The US founding fathers were hands down the strongest and smartest human beings who ever lived, they were 100% correct on everything they ever said or wrote about the old world. It’s fucking doomed.
you misunderstand the european courts. Assumption of innocence and the burden of proof are not actually tenants of continental european legal systems. In fact, the defendant has an equal obligation to prove his innocence to the prosecutions obligation to demonstrate guilt in many european courts--and the european unions courts are even worse. They don't have Habeas Corpus, and place the burden of proof nearly entirely on the defendant, especially in speech cases.
the defendant has an equal obligation to prove his innocence to the prosecutions obligation to demonstrate guilt in many european courts
That's simply not true. Presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of the laws of European countries, at least on paper.
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Article 6.2 ECHR (which let's be real, is trash)
They don't have Habeas Corpus
That's because it's a term from common law, and European countries have civil (Roman) law.
In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Article 6.1 ECHR
However, the problem is that the judges are nearly all hard-left radicals, who will twist the law as much as they can to persecute their opponents.
If you compare continental (EU) speech persecutions and those in Britain, Perfidious Albion is much the worse for it. The problems that we have clearly do not stem from not having common law rather than Roman law.
Thanks for the correction. No Habeus Corprus is a strong indicator of a shit legal system though. I was once tried and sentenced in an alimony case without even knowing there was a case against me :)
Crossborder alimony, from Poland to Austria. I'm pretty sure everybody on the forum can figure out that I'm in Poland by now, so I don't care.
The lack of Habeas Corpus on the continent is so grindingly ridiculous to me--it's manifestly evident that trial in absentia is a miscarriage of justice, but despite the exemplar being present and freely understandble, no continental country has ever said "hey, this is a good idea, we should write it into our laws!"
Crossborder alimony, from Poland to Austria. I'm pretty sure everybody on the forum can figure out that I'm in Poland by now, so I don't care.
Is the problem that they proceeded with a court case against you even though you were not present? Habeas corpus is about imprisonment. I'm not sure it would prevent that, although other fundamental legal principles certainly do.
The lack of Habeas Corpus on the continent is so grindingly ridiculous to me--it's manifestly evident that trial in absentia is a miscarriage of justice, but despite the exemplar being present and freely understandble, no continental country has ever said "hey, this is a good idea, we should write it into our laws!"
I would find it surprising if there is any country that does not have this written in its laws. It is a different matter if you're actively avoiding being served in order to avoid the suit. If you're served but do not appear, then judgment by default will be issued against you.
Did you actually have competent legal advice on this matter of yours?
In common-law, the court needs proof that defendant has received the summons and is either present, or has an advocate. I never received a summons since it was sent to the wrong country, and there was no advocate in the proceedings. Just a real shit-show all round. I didn't have any sort of legal advice at all because I was never made aware there was a process until it was finished and sealed and the execution run against me by polish bailiffs. I got competent advice later--the lawyer (Polish) said that they basically railroaded me, and any lawyer could have stopped them in their tracks had I known there was a case and been defended. Unfortunately, summons in Europe, as near as I can see, only need be sent. They don't seem to need proof of receipt.
Because if people are conditioned into a set of behaviors most of the people will continue those behaviors. Children are conditioned since birth and into adulthood to behave a certain way and are exposed to certain indoctrination and information, they will not suddenly go against that unless there is a significant disruption.
Big Brother is always watching. 1984 predicted a massive government bureaucracy of human drones monitoring everything by hand. AI will do the same but be far more efficient.
Text in private chat groups is just the beginning. Soon they'll demand access to microphones in your house so they can snoop on your private conversations via Alexa or smartphone data access.
They already have cameras in all public places, so next step is a camera in your private home. Don't want to let some evil white male incel (only group targeted of course) build a bomb, right? AI vision recognition algorithms will take care of processing that data.
Further down in the tweet chain, he also describes a peculiar gag order on his own case where he was both court ordered not to discuss the AI surveillance scores publicly on social media AND having to report for regular interviews at police stations while awaiting trial to assure his compliance.
Clearly whst needs to be done is to flex on the Europeans in government and trigger them in every conversation. Since they can't do shit about anything happening over seas. Make them cry tears of blood and then laugh at their impotent response.
Yeah, the key thing about this new round of AI's is that they are very good at predicting what a user wants to hear. This is immediately apparent in a multi-turn chat with an uncensored AI in which the AI will very quickly align it's ethical positions and politics with those of the user.
They are world class bullshitters. Despite what it appears, the sum total of human knowledge doesn't fit in one hundred gigabytes or so, it's just very good at filling in the gaps with things that it feels are plausible. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's not.
Leftist feeds it examples and all the examples referencing Africans are labeled racist and all examples referencing women are labeled sexist, it isn't going to question anything, and will readily rate any references to Africans or Women with high scores.
A case of using a shiny new tool in every application regardless of how suitable it is, likely compounded by a poor training set .
I think what's more important is the fact that it's an algorithm designed to complete a sentence following the flow of conversation. It has no way to process true non sequiturs, such as "no such answer exists." It will create an answer in the absence of one.
I question if it's possible to do this while being unarmed. People like to meme on Americans for having guns and never using them, but they're a part of every conversation in an unspoken parenthetical. Legal discussion is allowed because there is always an alternative that no one wants to see. "We need to talk about this (or I'll shoot you)"
What constitutions?
the ones forced on us by the allies.
But... but... muh foreign interference. Don't you dare try to stop my government from oppressing me.
Hmm...
https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/28/palantir_boss_fii_speech/
27 million died or were killed in the USSR alone. This journalist clearly knows what she's talking about.
Well, you do have an honest face...
He may be right though. Not that his software stopped anything, which I very much doubt it did, but if there had been more terror attacks, governments definitely would have used that as a reason to crack down. Not on immigrants. Not on Muslims. But on the normal population. "We have to take away all your freedoms to protect you from the people we're letting in, y'know".
Why we focusing on the AI tool rather than shitposting being illegal? I can't wrap my head around the concept.
AI tools is what allows the govt drones to effectively and efficiently process that huge amount of information. The data volume is so vast that was pretty much the limiting factor from the UK getting to do what they've always wanted (1984)
Given the errors in the AI scores I don't think this is true.
This assumes they would care about justice.
This is the fault of pozzed power mongering governments passing bullshit laws and restrictions on fundamental human rights, not the tools that were employed.
To be fair this basically what LLM type AIs are most suited for. When you have a tool that massively increases the capacity to directly surveil every citizen 24/7, there is some reason to be nervous.
Oh I'll agree. LLM's are an exceptionally efficient tool for gathering, collecting, and organizing that kind of data.
Most of it wouldn't be anywhere near as fucky if there were proper privacy protections for citizens, both from governments and corporations. Or if not for the attacks on VPN's and the attempts to push digital ID's.
Although even then, I do admit that AI could still be used to identify an individual (writing style analysis, any scraps of identifying info leaked from your connection) unless you maintain every security precaution imaginable every single day you use the Internet.
I'm sure racism charges will be applied equally and not just aimed at whitey
Then there is no need to defend yourself, because the 'public prosecutor' hasn't proven his case.
These people should be jailed for life after a fair trial. Not this guy, but the 'public prosecutor' and any 'judge' who go along with it.
Your argument’s fatal flaw lies in its attempt to employ logic and reason against people who are ruled by emotion and “feminine” energy. People who smile and wave “immigrants welcome” banners as their cathedrals burn and their rape rates skyrocket, people who can barely mount a lacklustre rebuttal to JD Vance without bursting into tears on the world stage.
Weak men are the most dangerous, and Europe is infested with (and ruled by) them.
The US founding fathers were hands down the strongest and smartest human beings who ever lived, they were 100% correct on everything they ever said or wrote about the old world. It’s fucking doomed.
Now we have “AI” capable of judging (generating a random opinion) for every reddit/twitter like.
Dystopian new world.
you misunderstand the european courts. Assumption of innocence and the burden of proof are not actually tenants of continental european legal systems. In fact, the defendant has an equal obligation to prove his innocence to the prosecutions obligation to demonstrate guilt in many european courts--and the european unions courts are even worse. They don't have Habeas Corpus, and place the burden of proof nearly entirely on the defendant, especially in speech cases.
That's simply not true. Presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of the laws of European countries, at least on paper.
Article 6.2 ECHR (which let's be real, is trash)
That's because it's a term from common law, and European countries have civil (Roman) law.
Article 6.1 ECHR
However, the problem is that the judges are nearly all hard-left radicals, who will twist the law as much as they can to persecute their opponents.
If you compare continental (EU) speech persecutions and those in Britain, Perfidious Albion is much the worse for it. The problems that we have clearly do not stem from not having common law rather than Roman law.
Thanks for the correction. No Habeus Corprus is a strong indicator of a shit legal system though. I was once tried and sentenced in an alimony case without even knowing there was a case against me :)
Might I ask the approximate or precise location (depending on how doxxing-proof you are) of the country where that happened?
Basically, the only places that have habeas corpus are countries that are based on English common law, and thus magna carta.
Crossborder alimony, from Poland to Austria. I'm pretty sure everybody on the forum can figure out that I'm in Poland by now, so I don't care.
The lack of Habeas Corpus on the continent is so grindingly ridiculous to me--it's manifestly evident that trial in absentia is a miscarriage of justice, but despite the exemplar being present and freely understandble, no continental country has ever said "hey, this is a good idea, we should write it into our laws!"
Is the problem that they proceeded with a court case against you even though you were not present? Habeas corpus is about imprisonment. I'm not sure it would prevent that, although other fundamental legal principles certainly do.
I would find it surprising if there is any country that does not have this written in its laws. It is a different matter if you're actively avoiding being served in order to avoid the suit. If you're served but do not appear, then judgment by default will be issued against you.
Did you actually have competent legal advice on this matter of yours?
In common-law, the court needs proof that defendant has received the summons and is either present, or has an advocate. I never received a summons since it was sent to the wrong country, and there was no advocate in the proceedings. Just a real shit-show all round. I didn't have any sort of legal advice at all because I was never made aware there was a process until it was finished and sealed and the execution run against me by polish bailiffs. I got competent advice later--the lawyer (Polish) said that they basically railroaded me, and any lawyer could have stopped them in their tracks had I known there was a case and been defended. Unfortunately, summons in Europe, as near as I can see, only need be sent. They don't seem to need proof of receipt.
This is why everyone should have access to and use of AI. Anything used against me, should be a weapon I can use against them.
Just let russia eat them alive.
I have friends in Europe who are applying for the asylum in Russia. It is an improvement.
It would be an improvement in some places.
Because of WW2.
Because allowing it would be anti semitism. Remember the 6 million.
Because certain people literally run the culture of western countries and this is the downstream symptom.
Because if people are conditioned into a set of behaviors most of the people will continue those behaviors. Children are conditioned since birth and into adulthood to behave a certain way and are exposed to certain indoctrination and information, they will not suddenly go against that unless there is a significant disruption.
Such is life in a communist shithole.
Big Brother is always watching. 1984 predicted a massive government bureaucracy of human drones monitoring everything by hand. AI will do the same but be far more efficient.
Text in private chat groups is just the beginning. Soon they'll demand access to microphones in your house so they can snoop on your private conversations via Alexa or smartphone data access.
They already have cameras in all public places, so next step is a camera in your private home. Don't want to let some evil white male incel (only group targeted of course) build a bomb, right? AI vision recognition algorithms will take care of processing that data.
Further down in the tweet chain, he also describes a peculiar gag order on his own case where he was both court ordered not to discuss the AI surveillance scores publicly on social media AND having to report for regular interviews at police stations while awaiting trial to assure his compliance.
Clearly whst needs to be done is to flex on the Europeans in government and trigger them in every conversation. Since they can't do shit about anything happening over seas. Make them cry tears of blood and then laugh at their impotent response.
Imagine using discord, now imagine using discord without a VPN in an occupied country...
You can literally ask a chatbot to give "some cultures are inferior" a hotdog score and it will come back with 100/100 once in a while.
This use of autocomplete is so stupid, it justifies violence.
Yeah, the key thing about this new round of AI's is that they are very good at predicting what a user wants to hear. This is immediately apparent in a multi-turn chat with an uncensored AI in which the AI will very quickly align it's ethical positions and politics with those of the user.
They are world class bullshitters. Despite what it appears, the sum total of human knowledge doesn't fit in one hundred gigabytes or so, it's just very good at filling in the gaps with things that it feels are plausible. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it's not.
Leftist feeds it examples and all the examples referencing Africans are labeled racist and all examples referencing women are labeled sexist, it isn't going to question anything, and will readily rate any references to Africans or Women with high scores.
A case of using a shiny new tool in every application regardless of how suitable it is, likely compounded by a poor training set .
I think what's more important is the fact that it's an algorithm designed to complete a sentence following the flow of conversation. It has no way to process true non sequiturs, such as "no such answer exists." It will create an answer in the absence of one.
Racism 50% detected
On noes, a waycism.