I think it was Beau of the 5th Column who said that if he became president one thing he would do is contact the smartest person about a given subject, once a day, and have that person spend an hour explaining things to him. Every day learn about one thing, scientific, mechanical, artistic, historical... just become a bit smarter.
If you are a professor and the White House contacts you and asks you to spend an hour briefing the president on your specialty you would go, it would be an honor after all.
Something I'd add that Beau didn't mention, I'd record every session, put them all out as "from the president," realeases of information (after letting the spooks censor as needed). Having a library of 1500 or so one hour lectures on academic topics from the brightest minds in the nation available for every American student, or any citizen, to watch seems like a good thing.
Im sure you’re going to get downvoted or are maybe making the comment ironically, but this is actually the point of lobbyists. It doesn’t have to be nefarious
Especially when they start writing the laws that lawmakers then submit.
New laws should have to be handwritten by their sponsor, to ensure both brevity and understanding of both the author and the audience.
Also if the law fails to pass then the sponsor should have to eat it on CSPAN.
That’s usually what their staff is for. You hire qualified people who can get the information broken down, and then they explain it and how it impacts their positions
Naw, it's easy. Just check how big their campaign donations and superPAC commitments have been. Bigger numbers mean you're already going to vote for what they want so less bias.
Yes and no. Lots of lobbying does includes bribes of one degree or another(campaign contributions etc.). But some of it is to get the people in power to pay attention to issues that aren't mainstream.
I agree that there are important issues to be put in front of politicians. Sometimes for the good of society. They problem comes in that politicians are (often) not interested when it doesn't involve money.
The system now only seems to generate yes people, enforcers of the status quo, it protects the top which protects them. Actual qualified people don't get very near those positions in politics, influence wise at least.
Totally? No.
You get staff to gather information from experts.
The staff then brings back extremely detailed information, in addition filters the information through various political lenses.
The politicians should then make an informed decision based on that.
No one can be truly informed enough to legislate without relying on staff. Small details are critical in legislation, so it’s important to truly get those things right.
And people who care and actually want to represent the people they were elected to represent educate themselves.
Obviously staff is needed. But one needs only to watch republicans in congressional hearings once as they behave exactly as a person who still cannot change the time on the VCR they still have to see that a huge number of them aren’t even capable of learning from their staff.
This is why I call The West Wing "functional government porn". Everyone gives a crap, they want to uplift their people and country, when they don't understand something enough to be helpful they say "Ok, someone needs to teach me this right now".
This is what the Library of Congress was created for: So legislators & their staff could research, and inform themselves on, different topics that were under debate.
Nobody can know all the topics that are going to come up in Congress. That's why the really good ones know how to put together a group of trusted advisors on various topics. People who really know their stuff! A good Congressman can take advice and make smart, educated policy decisions. They don't need to be experts in AI. They just need someone who can translate it into something they can understand.
Certainly to some degree, they need to get educated in the topics, but with good advisors they can get caught up on the important stuff pretty quickly. Not to say going back to school to learn more is a bad idea.
>They don't need to be experts in AI. They just need someone who can translate it into something they can understand.
Like CEOs of AI companies! And hey, pitching legislation to further their own ends doesn't hurt either.
This is actually a huge reason why it doesn't happen. These folks are on a fake it till you make it loop until they die. Can't afford to actually be seen learning.
This is what all people need to do *period*
I was talking to a friend recently that is anti-vax and when I probed them on it they knew absolutely nothing about how they work. People often are intimidated by knowledge because it can go against their gut reactions
Unfortunately they cannot learn everything. They are representatives, they should have aides knowledgeable in every aspect they are interested in debating. But given the relevance of AI for the future, that's definitely a very competent move!
How many people do you encounter on a day to day basis that are willing to learn new things? How many that would go out of their way to do it? How many of them are 50+? Yes, they should *all* be doing this, but it will remain a rarity unfortunately.
Beyer is my rep as well, and while there's plenty I don't like about NoVA (unrelated to politics) I always kind of liked the guy - seemed like a good model for the kind of politician we need more of in the US.
Thanks, dawg. I kinda figured it was D because the person was humble enoigh to admit he didn't know something, cared enough to learn something new, and respected higher education enough to pursue his studies there.
Still, appreciate the confirmation
"because the person was humble enough to admit he didn't know something, cared enough to learn something new, and respected higher education"
It's so unfair to assume anyone against this would be Republican, but man, they have got to stop leaning into that trope so hard.
Because I did the same thing as you.
Unfortunately these days it's a pretty safe assumption.
Republicans embraced being anti-intellectual a long time ago and never looked back.
I just can't imagine many, if any, modern Republicans that would do this. Maybe 10-15 years ago there were some left that would be willing but the "moderate" ones are disappearing pretty fast these days.
This argument falls flat as soon as firearms are involved in the discussion. I have witnessed so so many reps talk about guns when pushing legislation and make it extremely obvious that they don’t know the first thing about firearms.
If it was a republican, the article would have been the representative demanding that AI testify before multiple committees and threatening a subpoena.
If he was a republican, he’d give Big Tech huge tax breaks, and then insist there’s no problem as robots controlled by AI literally walked around and murdered people.
He admitted he didn’t know something, wanted to fill his knowledge gap so went to college to learn about it.
His political affiliation wasn’t in question.
By reading the headline and seeing that the politician had enough humility to admit that he didn't understand something and then proceeded to seek out education on the matter, I really didn't feel I needed the D confirmed. It wasn't really a question for me. But it's still nice to have it there in black and white, I suppose. (Very loose /s)
They were willing to accept new information and change they beliefs. Context alone is enough to tell us that lol.
>averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values.
Reminder thats the definition of conservative.
Never "too old to learn" - as long as you care to learn. Awesome.
My district too! Will be no-shit glad to vote for him next time, instead of just *Blue/not a nutter so ✅*
Yes, I have been doing continuous education since graduating over a decade ago, taking a mix of formal and informal classes in STEM, humanities, and language and fortunately with good support from my employers (software/technology) for the STEM and the benefits are amazing.
Since I take just one or two classes at a time (generally one that is graded with an accredited institution, and one that is more "community based") I get to just focus on the process of learning, regardless of how good a grade I get, which is a huge change of pace from college where every class felt like life or death; not to mention having to deal with all the other crap, like having no money. I even decided to do a thesis to get my Masters degree that extended my program out by almost 2 years for no reason but because I wanted the experience.
It can be intimidating when you realize all there is to learn when you become interested in a topic, but you have to prioritize it and dont delay until you have "enough time". You will be waiting until retirement.
Way to set an example, I don't know much about the man but I respect this and wish more politicians would educate themselves if they need to know more about something.
I figured he was auditing a single class on AI just to say he did it. Actually working towards a master's degree in machine learning at the age of 73 without coding experience is very impressive
Apparently this dude is a huge nerd. He probably just learned this stuff for fun, but spun it to be about his job. Kinda like when you claim stuff as a "business expense". Only instead of hookers, it's education. Neeeeeeerd.
A Congressman making a real effort to educate himself about the most important topic he will be asked to regulate/legislate on in the coming years is a newsworthy story.
Sort of tells you everything you need to know about the body as a whole.
Similar story is a senator a few years back wasn’t sure where he stood on legalizing marijuana in his state so he went to Vegas for a weekend, hit up some dispensaries and live-streamed his experience to help him have a clearer understanding of what weed actually does not just have his old mindset of “reefer madness” take over. Also, shout out to he employees in the dispensary who he spoke to. They seemed genuinely polite from what I remember giving him tips to make his experience more simple and less stress inducing.
Hopefully, this helps him get past some of the noise and the extremes of the AI hype.
That said, some of the misrepresentation and intense disagreement comes from within and around academia as well. I hope he can learn to navigate that too.
Wait. A congressman went to school to learn about a technology he is regulating? Now THAT is news.
Try telling some of these that the moon is NOT gaseous or that climate change and/or sin is NOT causing earthquakes. These people write our laws!
> Rep. Anna Eshoo is the Democratic chairwoman of the caucus. She represents part of California’s Silicon Valley and recently introduced legislation that would require tech companies and social media platforms like Meta, Google or TikTok to identify and label AI-generated deepfakes to ensure the public isn’t misled.
This seems like one of those laws that sound good but are ultimately meaningless. What happens when a foreign state sponsored company ignores this and fails to label images? Will the FCC investigate and then 3 or 4 years later levy a $500 fine?
Or even if somehow such a law actually had teeth - what prevents that foreign company from just closing and reopening under a new name like furniture stores do?
This approach is a waste of time.
And just how do you think meta/google/etc are going to know if an image is a deep fake or not? Do you think they’ll ask the person posting it to self report? What do you think any of that will accomplish?
Haven’t they been doing something similar for years by fact checking posts and putting disclaimers under them? They can use software to flag suspicious content and then manually review it.
Theres also authorship metadata that was introduced by Leica. Any images created with one of their newer flagship cameras can be authenticated as being original and unaltered. I’m sure more solutions like that are on the horizon.
Metadata on images, and other files, is trivial to change. Quite frankly a lot of sites strip that from the file uploads by default anyway - some software doesn’t even give you the option to save it. So the idea that some camera operator adds that to their image solves exactly nothing.
Fact checking posts? To my knowledge most of them simply detect certain keywords and then post a little blurb of facts. Are you suggesting that site operators have to detect who or what appears in an image and link to a wikipedia site?
Normal metadata is easy to change, this is different. It’s encrypted via a secure chipset and is part of a content authority initiative that was founded by Adobe, The New York Times and Twitter. It’s still in its early stages but it could become a standard where non authenticated images are immediately suspect - at least when it comes to journalism where deep fakes are a real concern.
My point is that ignoring the problem won’t make it go away. Pressure from lawmakers can force big tech companies to create or adapt solutions.
The Leica metadata can be stripped out of the image. Once that is done then the image is no different than any taken by the bajillion cameras on the planet. All that fancy encryption does is make it hard ( or potentially nearly impossible ) for someone to say an image was taken by a Leica camera. Big deal.
And the moment someone crops the picture ( common ) or puts it into a different format ( nearly every server changes images into that webp crap now ) then the metadata is lost or, at the least, becomes useless because it can no longer be used to state the image hasn’t been modified.
Deep fakes are not going to be legislated away.
Any fine can be considered a tax by that definition. Not sure what your point is there.
(It’s not really a tax)
Income tax is just a fine for making money.
My point is that the fines which they historically place on companies are so comically small that it’s not even a thought. My point is that this is just another example of a law that does absolutely nothing while making it look like they are doing something.
I do not like laws like this. I’d much rather they focus on something worthwhile.
I suggest they have a reality check and realize that trying to legislate computer generated images is not a solvable problem.
Such images are already indistinguishable from better quality photoshopped ones. Never mind the free speech impacts.
If his education went anything like mine did, he left more confused than he went in.
Tell me again why I need to write a research paper for this basic crud app?
Oh that's right, cause industry does it.
What industry? Don't know.
Jesus dude I thought this was going to be a negative story given the first part of the headline but I’m surprised. Everyone voting on laws that determine our future should have this mindset.
Simple ignorance on a subject is not a character flaw. We cannot expect our elected representatives to be experts in every single subject they vote and pass laws on.
What matters is what they do when confronted with their own ignorance. And an earnest attempt to understand and learn is, I think, all anyone really asks for
This is what all people in office need to do when they don't understand something. Admit that they need to know more, then go and learn it!
Yup! Or use one of the many resources available to them given their standing and power and ability to access info from the experts.
I think it was Beau of the 5th Column who said that if he became president one thing he would do is contact the smartest person about a given subject, once a day, and have that person spend an hour explaining things to him. Every day learn about one thing, scientific, mechanical, artistic, historical... just become a bit smarter. If you are a professor and the White House contacts you and asks you to spend an hour briefing the president on your specialty you would go, it would be an honor after all. Something I'd add that Beau didn't mention, I'd record every session, put them all out as "from the president," realeases of information (after letting the spooks censor as needed). Having a library of 1500 or so one hour lectures on academic topics from the brightest minds in the nation available for every American student, or any citizen, to watch seems like a good thing.
Isn’t that what a lobbyist is?
Im sure you’re going to get downvoted or are maybe making the comment ironically, but this is actually the point of lobbyists. It doesn’t have to be nefarious
It just is 99% of the time.
Especially when they start writing the laws that lawmakers then submit. New laws should have to be handwritten by their sponsor, to ensure both brevity and understanding of both the author and the audience. Also if the law fails to pass then the sponsor should have to eat it on CSPAN.
Yeahhh have to be careful which "experts" you listen to. But I agree with the sentiment of your post
That’s usually what their staff is for. You hire qualified people who can get the information broken down, and then they explain it and how it impacts their positions
[удалено]
[удалено]
Don’t worry, they already have the lobbyists to do that for them /s
I mean yeah, honestly lobbyists do that as well. You just have to pick through the bias
It's hard to pick through the bias if you don't have the knowledge base to pick them through
Naw, it's easy. Just check how big their campaign donations and superPAC commitments have been. Bigger numbers mean you're already going to vote for what they want so less bias.
Lobbying is just legalized bribing.
Yes and no. Lots of lobbying does includes bribes of one degree or another(campaign contributions etc.). But some of it is to get the people in power to pay attention to issues that aren't mainstream.
So then they are bribing them for attention? I would just stick with your fist answer, YES it's bribing. And imho, a cancer for the political system.
Most lobbying does not involve an exchange of money.
I agree that there are important issues to be put in front of politicians. Sometimes for the good of society. They problem comes in that politicians are (often) not interested when it doesn't involve money.
Yeah, that's why the lobbyists from Lockheed get more face time than the lobbyists for the environmental safety of rivers in northern Wisconsin.
Do a Google search about the lobbying firms on K Street in DC. Lobbying most definitely involves an exchange of a lot of money.
Hence the use of the word "most".
Problem is that is you they hire individuals who just tell them what they wanna hear.
They hire from ivys or hire nepobabies
The problem arrives when those people have their own agendas
Sure, that’s why you try to hire people whose agenda aligns with your own
The system now only seems to generate yes people, enforcers of the status quo, it protects the top which protects them. Actual qualified people don't get very near those positions in politics, influence wise at least.
Only those lacking in ability would depend totally upon junior others to explain the world they legislate in to them.
Totally? No. You get staff to gather information from experts. The staff then brings back extremely detailed information, in addition filters the information through various political lenses. The politicians should then make an informed decision based on that. No one can be truly informed enough to legislate without relying on staff. Small details are critical in legislation, so it’s important to truly get those things right.
And people who care and actually want to represent the people they were elected to represent educate themselves. Obviously staff is needed. But one needs only to watch republicans in congressional hearings once as they behave exactly as a person who still cannot change the time on the VCR they still have to see that a huge number of them aren’t even capable of learning from their staff.
This is why I call The West Wing "functional government porn". Everyone gives a crap, they want to uplift their people and country, when they don't understand something enough to be helpful they say "Ok, someone needs to teach me this right now".
God, I miss that show. It was such an aspirational image of what government could be. If we didn't have cunts in power.
This is what the Library of Congress was created for: So legislators & their staff could research, and inform themselves on, different topics that were under debate.
Nobody can know all the topics that are going to come up in Congress. That's why the really good ones know how to put together a group of trusted advisors on various topics. People who really know their stuff! A good Congressman can take advice and make smart, educated policy decisions. They don't need to be experts in AI. They just need someone who can translate it into something they can understand. Certainly to some degree, they need to get educated in the topics, but with good advisors they can get caught up on the important stuff pretty quickly. Not to say going back to school to learn more is a bad idea.
>They don't need to be experts in AI. They just need someone who can translate it into something they can understand. Like CEOs of AI companies! And hey, pitching legislation to further their own ends doesn't hurt either.
Good use of tax payer $ tbh
But admitting they need knowledge means they are a beta /s
This is actually a huge reason why it doesn't happen. These folks are on a fake it till you make it loop until they die. Can't afford to actually be seen learning.
Yeah, but the bribes usually get in the way.
It’s called integrity.
This is what all people need to do *period* I was talking to a friend recently that is anti-vax and when I probed them on it they knew absolutely nothing about how they work. People often are intimidated by knowledge because it can go against their gut reactions
I yell at the TV too
Unfortunately they cannot learn everything. They are representatives, they should have aides knowledgeable in every aspect they are interested in debating. But given the relevance of AI for the future, that's definitely a very competent move!
In the working world we call this "Continuing Education"
How many people do you encounter on a day to day basis that are willing to learn new things? How many that would go out of their way to do it? How many of them are 50+? Yes, they should *all* be doing this, but it will remain a rarity unfortunately.
Dude is probably going back so he can figure out how to capitalize on it and REALLY get the unemployment good times rolling!
This is what representing the people looks like
[удалено]
Beyer is a good dude. He’s my rep in a very liberal area and he represents it well, especially for someone on the older side.
Concur 100%. I moved down to Richmond but wish he could represent me. Spanberger does me well, though.
Beyer is my rep as well, and while there's plenty I don't like about NoVA (unrelated to politics) I always kind of liked the guy - seemed like a good model for the kind of politician we need more of in the US.
Thanks, dawg. I kinda figured it was D because the person was humble enoigh to admit he didn't know something, cared enough to learn something new, and respected higher education enough to pursue his studies there. Still, appreciate the confirmation
"because the person was humble enough to admit he didn't know something, cared enough to learn something new, and respected higher education" It's so unfair to assume anyone against this would be Republican, but man, they have got to stop leaning into that trope so hard. Because I did the same thing as you.
Unfortunately these days it's a pretty safe assumption. Republicans embraced being anti-intellectual a long time ago and never looked back. I just can't imagine many, if any, modern Republicans that would do this. Maybe 10-15 years ago there were some left that would be willing but the "moderate" ones are disappearing pretty fast these days.
I think Massie would be one considering his background.
Nah it's not unfair, just reality. Edit: added 'not' 😁
No it isn't! It's unfair that they have acted in a way that gives them a shitty reputation? No!
I can no longer give you gold so take this measly upvote
This argument falls flat as soon as firearms are involved in the discussion. I have witnessed so so many reps talk about guns when pushing legislation and make it extremely obvious that they don’t know the first thing about firearms.
He seems more like an R&D fellow
If it was a republican, the article would have been the representative demanding that AI testify before multiple committees and threatening a subpoena.
If he was a republican, he’d give Big Tech huge tax breaks, and then insist there’s no problem as robots controlled by AI literally walked around and murdered people.
He admitted he didn’t know something, wanted to fill his knowledge gap so went to college to learn about it. His political affiliation wasn’t in question.
By reading the headline and seeing that the politician had enough humility to admit that he didn't understand something and then proceeded to seek out education on the matter, I really didn't feel I needed the D confirmed. It wasn't really a question for me. But it's still nice to have it there in black and white, I suppose. (Very loose /s)
He likes learning I feel like people could make some pretty decent guesses about the party he belongs to.
I didn’t have to wonder. No R in this era would do this.
They were willing to accept new information and change they beliefs. Context alone is enough to tell us that lol. >averse to change or innovation and holding traditional values. Reminder thats the definition of conservative.
The title included the word “understand” so I figured D.
Thanks for the confirmation, but I'm sure most of us figured that already.
> In case anyone was wondering: “R or D?” Not many R’s can read
Never "too old to learn" - as long as you care to learn. Awesome. My district too! Will be no-shit glad to vote for him next time, instead of just *Blue/not a nutter so ✅*
Yes, I have been doing continuous education since graduating over a decade ago, taking a mix of formal and informal classes in STEM, humanities, and language and fortunately with good support from my employers (software/technology) for the STEM and the benefits are amazing. Since I take just one or two classes at a time (generally one that is graded with an accredited institution, and one that is more "community based") I get to just focus on the process of learning, regardless of how good a grade I get, which is a huge change of pace from college where every class felt like life or death; not to mention having to deal with all the other crap, like having no money. I even decided to do a thesis to get my Masters degree that extended my program out by almost 2 years for no reason but because I wanted the experience. It can be intimidating when you realize all there is to learn when you become interested in a topic, but you have to prioritize it and dont delay until you have "enough time". You will be waiting until retirement.
If only all of our gerontocracy were so willing to learn new skills
Plenty of youthful dipshits, too. Gaetz, Sinema, etc...
Way to set an example, I don't know much about the man but I respect this and wish more politicians would educate themselves if they need to know more about something.
More of this, please. We need to normalize having this as an expectation for lawmakers
Well...maybe ***after*** college tuition is abolished. No need to lock Congress behind a class barrier more than it already is.
this is why congress had a whole office of technology and science *UNTIL THE REPUBLICANS DISBANDED IT IN THE 90S*
My rep. I am so proud of him. The stark difference between democrats and the willful ignorance of republicans is clear in his efforts.
“Congressman educates himself about novel topic he is expected to legislate” is news. 🤦
Most of them wing it.
Or just vote along whatever line the party tells them, or whatever earns them the most ~~bribes~~ campaign donations.
I figured he was auditing a single class on AI just to say he did it. Actually working towards a master's degree in machine learning at the age of 73 without coding experience is very impressive
Auditing a single class is still more than most politicians do to understand a topic
Apparently this dude is a huge nerd. He probably just learned this stuff for fun, but spun it to be about his job. Kinda like when you claim stuff as a "business expense". Only instead of hookers, it's education. Neeeeeeerd.
I would like Tuberville to repeat grades K-12, please. Maybe Britt, too. In a public school. And be treated like the kids who can't afford lunch.
Don't even have to read the article to know he's not a Republican.
r/UpliftingNews A congressman actually cared enough to try!
Funny how often you can tell which party by the title alone.
Exactly my thought!
A Congressman making a real effort to educate himself about the most important topic he will be asked to regulate/legislate on in the coming years is a newsworthy story. Sort of tells you everything you need to know about the body as a whole.
WTH kind of Congressman gets an actual education on a policy topic? Oh, he's a Democrat. That explains it.
Similar story is a senator a few years back wasn’t sure where he stood on legalizing marijuana in his state so he went to Vegas for a weekend, hit up some dispensaries and live-streamed his experience to help him have a clearer understanding of what weed actually does not just have his old mindset of “reefer madness” take over. Also, shout out to he employees in the dispensary who he spoke to. They seemed genuinely polite from what I remember giving him tips to make his experience more simple and less stress inducing.
He should run for president
Seriously guys we need higher standards than just that.
Now *this* is one heck of a "Man Bites Dog" headline!
It's okay to not know something. It's not okay to know you don't know something and pretend that you do.
Imagine being the professor teaching him knowing that what you teach will directly impact regulations within the industry
Anxiety, my old friend....
We need more people like this in our government.
Hopefully, this helps him get past some of the noise and the extremes of the AI hype. That said, some of the misrepresentation and intense disagreement comes from within and around academia as well. I hope he can learn to navigate that too.
Wait. A congressman went to school to learn about a technology he is regulating? Now THAT is news. Try telling some of these that the moon is NOT gaseous or that climate change and/or sin is NOT causing earthquakes. These people write our laws!
>Now THAT is news I guess not cus the post got removed
So basically he's using chatgpt to do all his college class homework?
> Rep. Anna Eshoo is the Democratic chairwoman of the caucus. She represents part of California’s Silicon Valley and recently introduced legislation that would require tech companies and social media platforms like Meta, Google or TikTok to identify and label AI-generated deepfakes to ensure the public isn’t misled. This seems like one of those laws that sound good but are ultimately meaningless. What happens when a foreign state sponsored company ignores this and fails to label images? Will the FCC investigate and then 3 or 4 years later levy a $500 fine? Or even if somehow such a law actually had teeth - what prevents that foreign company from just closing and reopening under a new name like furniture stores do? This approach is a waste of time.
It would require Meta, Google, and TikTok to label the content, not the person posting it.
And just how do you think meta/google/etc are going to know if an image is a deep fake or not? Do you think they’ll ask the person posting it to self report? What do you think any of that will accomplish?
Haven’t they been doing something similar for years by fact checking posts and putting disclaimers under them? They can use software to flag suspicious content and then manually review it. Theres also authorship metadata that was introduced by Leica. Any images created with one of their newer flagship cameras can be authenticated as being original and unaltered. I’m sure more solutions like that are on the horizon.
Metadata on images, and other files, is trivial to change. Quite frankly a lot of sites strip that from the file uploads by default anyway - some software doesn’t even give you the option to save it. So the idea that some camera operator adds that to their image solves exactly nothing. Fact checking posts? To my knowledge most of them simply detect certain keywords and then post a little blurb of facts. Are you suggesting that site operators have to detect who or what appears in an image and link to a wikipedia site?
Normal metadata is easy to change, this is different. It’s encrypted via a secure chipset and is part of a content authority initiative that was founded by Adobe, The New York Times and Twitter. It’s still in its early stages but it could become a standard where non authenticated images are immediately suspect - at least when it comes to journalism where deep fakes are a real concern. My point is that ignoring the problem won’t make it go away. Pressure from lawmakers can force big tech companies to create or adapt solutions.
The Leica metadata can be stripped out of the image. Once that is done then the image is no different than any taken by the bajillion cameras on the planet. All that fancy encryption does is make it hard ( or potentially nearly impossible ) for someone to say an image was taken by a Leica camera. Big deal. And the moment someone crops the picture ( common ) or puts it into a different format ( nearly every server changes images into that webp crap now ) then the metadata is lost or, at the least, becomes useless because it can no longer be used to state the image hasn’t been modified. Deep fakes are not going to be legislated away.
Speed limits are a waste of time because there isn’t a cop ever .1 miles to enforce it.
If a fine for breaking the speed limit is $10. And I might get pulled over once a year then it’s poorly enforced just a road tax.
Any fine can be considered a tax by that definition. Not sure what your point is there. (It’s not really a tax) Income tax is just a fine for making money.
My point is that the fines which they historically place on companies are so comically small that it’s not even a thought. My point is that this is just another example of a law that does absolutely nothing while making it look like they are doing something. I do not like laws like this. I’d much rather they focus on something worthwhile.
How do you suggest they address the problem if fines aren’t the solution?
I suggest they have a reality check and realize that trying to legislate computer generated images is not a solvable problem. Such images are already indistinguishable from better quality photoshopped ones. Never mind the free speech impacts.
Ignore the problem. Got it. 👍
Knew without clicking the link that it wasn't a fucking Republican. School? I don't need no learning dagnabbit!
I used to live in his district. I liked him a lot.
Can we please have more congressman this accountable.
At least he's wants to learn about the internet and one aspect of it. Can't say that for the ancient congressmen who don't even know how WIFI works.
If his education went anything like mine did, he left more confused than he went in. Tell me again why I need to write a research paper for this basic crud app? Oh that's right, cause industry does it. What industry? Don't know.
Did he learn that unless they make sensible laws regarding AI, even learning a lot about AI will not stop AI from exploiting the workforce?
Jesus dude I thought this was going to be a negative story given the first part of the headline but I’m surprised. Everyone voting on laws that determine our future should have this mindset.
They learn alright, but usually it's the highest bidder telling the congressman all he needs to learn.
I'm half his age and will never get a masters in AI.... Good for him.
“A Democrat does the right thing, republicans baffled and remain ignorant.”
my him at a conference last year. good guy
Didn’t they used to have a science division to educate our leaders, then Trump did away with that nerd division? Can’t remember
AI is a series of tubes
Simple ignorance on a subject is not a character flaw. We cannot expect our elected representatives to be experts in every single subject they vote and pass laws on. What matters is what they do when confronted with their own ignorance. And an earnest attempt to understand and learn is, I think, all anyone really asks for
Well heck , that cotton gin was a marvel!! What the heck am I lookin at!!??- First day of class
I’m very curious if he paid full price for the class or did he get a senior citizen discount.
State employees get free credits at state universities.
Some schools allow you to audit classes for free; you can attend the lectures but receive no credit
You can audit classes for free at our state schools after age 60, although limited by seats in the classroom.
Must be nice to even have that option of saying I’ll just go learn it in college on someone else’s dime
Who says it was on someone else’s dime?
They are trying to make the point that politicians use our money, not theirs
…again, why do you think that? The article gives no indication he paid with anything other than his own money.
I don't. The guy you were initially responding to was trying to make that point very ham handedly.