zugi (u/zugi) - Readit News

zugi commented on Sam Altman Responds to Anthropic Ad Campaign twitter.com/i/status/2019... · Posted by u/gradus_ad

zugi · 8 days ago

Deleting paragraphs 2 and 3 and tweaking paragraph 4 could have made this a great and informative reply by Altman.

That would favorably contrast ChatGPT's products, pricing, and market size with Claude's.

Instead, well, it's not a good look.

zugi commented on Govt's Theory for Prosecuting Don Lemon as to Disruption of Minn. Church Service reason.com/volokh/2026/01... · Posted by u/treetalker

zugi · 13 days ago

This will be an interesting case. Lemon has been adamant that far from "conspiring", he hadn't even known the target of the operation until he showed up that morning "to cover it." So I was sure the government had no case whatsoever.

These quotes make it clear that, despite Lemon's statement being true, he then carefully hid the news until the protestors wanted it revealed. That alone probably wouldn't stick either, as requiring journalists to immediately reveal such information from sources would stifle free press.

Claims that he blocked parishioners from leaving will be hard to prove too in a crowded chaotic scene.

Misdemeanor trespassing for not leaving the building when so directed might stick, but that's a local charge, not federal.

Ultimately now independent journalist Lemon wins regardless of the verdict, due to the added publicity of the charges.

zugi commented on US has investigated claims WhatsApp chats aren't private bloomberg.com/news/articl... · Posted by u/1vuio0pswjnm7

oefrha · 13 days ago

I always assumed Meta has backdoor that at least allows them to compromise key individuals if men in black ask, but law firm representing NSO courageously defending the people? Come the fuck on.

> Our colleagues’ defence of NSO on appeal has nothing to do with the facts disclosed to us and which form the basis of the lawsuit we brought for worldwide WhatsApp users.

zugi · 13 days ago

> I always assumed Meta has backdoor that at least allows them to compromise key individuals if men in black ask

According to Meta's own voluntarily published official statements, they do not.

* FAQ on encryption: https://faq.whatsapp.com/820124435853543

* FAQ for law enforcement: https://faq.whatsapp.com/444002211197967

These representations are legally binding. If Meta were intentionally lying on these, it would invite billions of dollars of liability. They use similar terminology as Signal and the best private VPN companies: we can't read and don't retain message content, so law enforcement can't ask for it. They do keep some "meta" information and will provide it with a valid subpoenoa.

The latter link even clarifies Meta's interpretation of their responsibilities under "National Security Letters", which the US Government has tried to use to circumvent 4th amendment protections in the past:

> We interpret the national security letter provision as applied to WhatsApp to require the production of only two categories of information: name and length of service.

I guess we'll see if this lawsuit goes anywhere or discovery reveals anything surprising.

zugi commented on Self Driving Car Insurance lemonade.com/car/explaine... · Posted by u/KellyCriterion

jasoncartwright · 14 days ago

If it autonomous or self-driving then why is the person in the car paying for the insurance? Surely if it's Tesla making the decisions, they need the insurance?

zugi · 14 days ago

If your minor child breaks something, or your pet bites someone, you are liable.

This analogy may be more apt than Tesla would like to admit, but from a liability perspective it makes sense.

You could in turn try to sue Tesla for defective FSD, but the now-clearly-advertised "(supervised)" caveat, plus the lengthy agreement you clicked through, plus lots of lawyers, makes you unlikely to win.

zugi commented on Notice of collective action lawsuit against Workday, Inc. workdaycase.com... · Posted by u/mooreds

rilindo · 18 days ago

> Fundamental fairness requires that if an automated system denies you a loan, a house, or a job, it be able to explain something you can challenge, fix, or at least understand.

That could get interesting, as most companies will not provide feedback if you are denied employment.

zugi · 18 days ago

Fair point. Maybe the requirement should be that the automated system provide an explanation that some human could review for fairness and correctness. While who receives the explanation may be a separate question, the drawback of LLMs judging people is that said explanation may not even exist.

zugi commented on Notice of collective action lawsuit against Workday, Inc. workdaycase.com... · Posted by u/mooreds

nemomarx · 18 days ago

I'm sure you could get an LLM to create a plausible sounding justification for every decision? It might not be related to the real reason, but coming up with text isn't the hard part there surely

zugi · 18 days ago

> I'm sure you could get an LLM to create a plausible sounding justification for every decision.

That's a great point: funny, sad, and true.

My AI class predated LLMs. The implicit assumption was that the explanation had to be correct and verifiable, which may not be achievable with LLMs.

zugi commented on Notice of collective action lawsuit against Workday, Inc. workdaycase.com... · Posted by u/mooreds

boscillator · 18 days ago

It will be fascinating to see the facts of this case, but if it is proven their algorithms are discriminatory, even by accident, I hope workday is held accountable. Making sure your AI doesn't violate obvious discrimination laws should be basic engineering practice, and the courts should help remind people of that.

zugi · 18 days ago

An AI class that I took decades ago had just a 1 day session on "AI ethics". Somehow despite being short, it was memorable (or maybe because it was short...)

They said ethics demand that any AI that is going to pass judgment on humans must be able to explain its reasoning. An if-then rule says this, or even a statistical correlation between A and B indicates that would be fine. Fundamental fairness requires that if an automated system denies you a loan, a house, or a job, it be able to explain something you can challenge, fix, or at least understand.

LLMs may be able to provide that, but it would have to be carefully built into the system.

zugi commented on ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data eff.org/deeplinks/2026/01... · Posted by u/JKCalhoun

lovich · 19 days ago

Not anymore. Now in the US you can be arrested if cops think you disrespected a dead guy they liked[1]

[1] https://apnews.com/article/charlie-kirk-meme-tennessee-arres...

zugi · 19 days ago

Yes, that was egregious and well-publicized. I've seen another case of a small-town sheriff arresting someone for a Facebook post that absolutely was not a threat of violence. Both were released and I believe the latter won a lawsuit for wrongful arrest.

But in general in the US "offending" others is not a legal basis for arrest, as much as some in power would like it to be.

zugi commented on ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data eff.org/deeplinks/2026/01... · Posted by u/JKCalhoun

iso1631 · 19 days ago

In the US if you make a social media post threatening the president you are breaking the law and can be sent to jail just as much as if you said it

zugi · 19 days ago

These are both true statements, but there's a huge difference in scale.

The UK arrests 12,000 people per year for social media posts ( https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-kingdom/freedom-net/... ), for a broad range of vague reasons including causing offense. That's far more than much larger totalitarian nations like Russia and China.

The US arrests folks for direct online threats of violence - a much higher bar.

zugi commented on ICE using Palantir tool that feeds on Medicaid data eff.org/deeplinks/2026/01... · Posted by u/JKCalhoun

RicciFlow · 19 days ago

EU is literally debating about "Chat Control". Its purpose is to scan for child sexual abuse material in internet traffic. But its at the cost of breaking end to end encryption.

zugi · 19 days ago

> Its purpose is to scan

That's its ostensible, purported, show purpose.

The real purpose is to break end to end encryption to increase government surveillance and power. "But think of the children" or "be afraid of the terrorists" are just the excuses those in power rotate through to to achieve their true desired ends.