Am I missing something? I only see the AI overview as an option after clicking the “try new features” lab logo. Are some versions of Google search forcing this feature currently?

What’s the old lingers?

If we find people who regret it, do we then need to ban it? Is there a certain threshold of regretful people we need to meet?

Do you expect a lot of people to regret something that happened to them before they were capable of forming memories?

deleted by creator

“According to Air Canada, Moffatt never should have trusted the chatbot and the airline should not be liable for the chatbot’s misleading information because Air Canada essentially argued that “the chatbot is a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions,” a court order said.”

Can you imagine the hellscape we’d be living in if precedent went the other way? Companies could just run every unsavory decision through some machine learning system and then wash their hands of it afterwards.

“Oh you were illegally fired? Sorry, that decision came from the Overmind, not from us.”

A majority of Americans want stricter gun laws, and that’s been consistent for quite a few years.

We also have a dysfunctional political system that prevents popular ideas from getting anywhere, but we’re not really unique in that I suppose.

When you can’t afford a Big Mac, just eat the rich

deleted by creator

Translation: shrinkflation incoming

Yeah cool, don’t explain or anything

I’d argue that debates aren’t useful without a neutral, mutually trusted media source that listeners from both sides would refer to for fact-checking. The US has debates but the soundbites that partisan media air are the main way people consume them. Few people watch the whole debate, and few want to because they’re mostly just hot air.

Plus, one candidate can use the debate to lie out of their ass and at least one media source will follow that up by spitting out misleading info to support the lies.

I don’t mean to both-sides this, obviously right wing media is more egregious on this front. But their captured audience tuning out fact-checks from other media is maybe the bigger problem.

All of this happening on the sidelines fundamentally alters the purpose of a debate. For example, changing the tone and style of interaction; people aren’t trying to come to an agreement or win over new supporters, just shout over someone to get in soundbites that can be replayed by their team.

I’m sure they’ll do it in a way that’s convenient and doesn’t require 14 clicks through obnoxiously designed popups every single time you use a Google service. Yep, certainly no way this could go wrong.

In some countries, they are

General strike/protest? Get enough people making noise on the street and people will have to listen. With a presidential election coming up, Dems won’t be able to fully ignore it either.

Yeah I’ve gotten similar results too. Fwiw, I don’t think downvoting is a good way to change your results. It seems to key into any interaction at all and also watch time. As soon as I see certain people I started just swiping immediately

I think we’re sort of deciding that right now? Lots of new technologies are getting out ahead of any substantial laws that would protect human rights in these situations.

What if you have face unlock?

It takes mental effort to defend a group, or to engage in good faith discussion at all, really. People tend to pick up on key buzzwords that get thrown around a lot by certain groups and use those to gauge whether the discussion is going to be worth continuing. Concern-trolling and “I’m just asking questions” is quite common in these contexts, so both sides do this, to be honest.

I think the divide is bigger on more important issues, so compromise and bipartisanship are more likely on less headline-grabbing issues.

Sucking at something is the first step to being sorta good at something