Oh no, my ruse didn’t work. Cover blown. Back to the drawing boards.

Non allies then. Or countries with goals in conflict with ours.

Chines ancestry is not the same as being a Chinese citizen. They already check for many things, when assessing whether you are suitable for access to secrets. Sounds like it might be more tick the box than actual checks.

My partner is in Defence. I know people of many nationalities that serve. I was surprised it was allowed, initially but it makes sense in the context of Australian people being born overseas commonly. I’m also Australian with dual citizenship. I would consider myself more if a risk than my kids, for instance. I wouldn’t betray Australia and love life here. However if my family were threatened that might change things. That’s not uncommon in China or Russia from my understanding.

There is a difference being born overseas to our enemies or to our allies. Surely the checks should be different.

China and Russia would seem to be a bigger risk for espionage. We already share with USA, UK and others.

Like, if you said there were two spies born in Luxembourg that were stealing Defence documents, it would be unusual and wed question why. 2 Russians (who are also Australian). Less of a surprise. Why are the Defence forces surprised?

Not only that but those parents do a double commute. School drop off and work commute. Before school care starts at 7am at my sons school. I start at 7:45 so hes dropped before 7:30.

As with all things, it will come down to how its used and the prompt.

For instance, filler characters could have a built in plan tonger more abrasive and use shorter responses when engaged.

The plot can still be set and the dialogue is used to advance that, however you choose to proceed.

I’m sure some will be seamless and great. Others will be clunky. Its not the tool, but how its used. If generative AI is just used to make assets and dialogue instead of paying artists, it will be crappy. If artists use it to plan characters and plots that flow more freely but still allow engagement and sandbox, it’ll be awesome.

They did. It ibky has weather so you allow location.

I heard a male reporter try out the make up on radio. Very strange segment that made no sense and he had no concept of what was normal for make up. He sprayed it in his face without removing his glasses, so couldn’t see afterwards

It was almost conical, but was supposed to be serious. It lowered my opinion of him, of the show and of the ABC in general. If I’m choosing to listen to news instead of fluff, I expect news.

You do of course realise that despite the name, it is not a company?

When you rudely try to correct someone, but are inaccurate, you make yourself look like even dumber than what you complain about.

Yes, a licence fee approved by government and given to the BBC. Its not optional. Its a tax by another name with some arms length from the government to try to prevent conflict of interest. It does OK at that but not great.

However the point is that you can mix profitable endeavors successfully into a non profit to improve the non profit and fund the non profit parts. The problem is when the tail wags the dog.

Yes, a licence fee approved by government and given to the BBC. Its not optional. Its a tax by another name with some arms length from the government to try to prevent conflict of interest. It does OK at that but not great.

The BBC is a respected broadcaster in the UK that shows no ads as it is government funded. They have investments abroad that have ads showing their programs, for profit to fund more programming. It doesn’t change their mission. In fact, some shows have cone from their for-profit division. You can have values and be for the people but still live on the real world.

Friends just finished renos. We went to visit. Its really nice. They put on a lovely lunch despite the oven not working, lol.

My personal fave is floordrobe.

Theirs may be better. And theirs may be cheaper. But we pay cerrifiers to make sure our quality meets the strictest standards of acceptable for human consumption.

They wore clothes with a political statement. So, hr rightly asked them not to. They complied, but were still fired. I hope they get a lot of money and donate some to Palestine.

Lol, if you mean facebooks AI will skew more towards the views of American Facebook users, I’d say that’s a win for Europe. It will make the AI less valuable, creating a gap in the market for a better AI that can reflect European values or american or both.

AI does not need infinite data. They can easily licence that amount of content. They are just trying to do it cheaply with user content.

I gully expect use for AI training to become a standardized part of locencing for media and content going forwards. For a band or singer, or author, it may be they ibky get a small amoint for using their content but it won’t be stolen. There is minimal value in any one part of the content. There is value in the aggregate of lots of data.

Digitized books out of copyright have more archaic language but I expect we will see lots of media out of copyright being used also. Media organization that make movies, TV shows and publish newspapers and magazines also have a trove of content.

Also the rise of containerised software that is more easily cross platform for self hosting what would once have been cloud only.

Depending on private companies for free speech is bad for free speech in and of itself. So either course has negatives, which means the course with leqsr negative outcomes is best. If they over moderate, they lose users. If they undermoderate they face fines. I’m sure the market force will mean they do whatever is most profitable.

Holding social media companies responsible for the content they host is a better solution in my view. We hold newspapers responsible. Why not social media? Yes, moderation is expensive but they are wildly profitable, musk aside.

They don’t need to moderate everything, as the content volume is high, but they certainly could manually moderate all content that reaches a certain threshd. They choose not to and hide behind their users sharing as a reason.

I agree, but I think it is more complex than that. There are limits to free speech already. I agree that no one country should be able to censor others, but what about content that is illegally produced in that country.

So if terrorist training videos were made in Australia, could banning them from distribution mean they could prosecute fitter for distributing them? How about csam? How about China prosecutes for ibfro about Tiananmen. What about CSAM?

So objectively there are things some countries would want banned, but not all. Some that all might agree to ban. Classifying it might help but might that be more of an invasion of privacy? The web is built on lots of open protocols that assume good actors and no malicious intent. We are now adding protocols that increase privacy and security on top. Even something like the fediverse is a good example of the trade off between being public and being anonymous and being private. You can’t have it all.