That's a good yardstick. Would a reasonable human driver call (or want to call) the cops? If yes, it's reasonable for Waymo to do the same

No, it's like making a snow report for a handful of skiing areas in a small geographical area (e.g. Sierras) and then contextualizing it against the snow report for all skiing areas in the broader region (e.g. Western US).

What is your point? It’s not that complicated. Obvious slop is obvious. Maybe there are some humans out there who sound like Claude but I’m not going to force myself through 900 slop blog posts on the off chance that one of them might actually be written by a human.

Maybe some people stop reading LLM slop purely because it violates their moral principles or whatever but most people bail out because slop is mentally painful to read. If you are a human and you write like today’s AI find a different writing style, not because reads like AI, but because it reads like shit.

When I clicked “see more reviews” while signed out it prompted me to sign in

That's been the case for years.

YES. A thousand times yes. It's garbage.

This post does not read like LLM output though

Is this a real take? You don’t see a difference between an app that allows anyone to transform a picture of someone into a convincing nude within seconds with no skill boundary, and MS paint?

Take any woman head, use PS on any porn snapshot, use the clone tool, now you have a crude approximation. PS or Gimp skills = near zero.

The resulting image holds zero power compared to a realistic deepfake. A drawing or a crude photoshop is obviously artificial.

A deepfake can be used to blackmail, ruin someone’s reputation, or deeply unsettle them. The power of an artificial image along those dimensions scales exactly with how convincing it is.

An app that can generate convincing deepfakes quickly, cheaply, and easily is essentially a weapon.

Do you think Google should get government sign-off on every change to its routing algorithm?

That's not a bad idea, since we pay for the roads, not Google.

I fear you may overestimate the median benefit of government oversight.

I fear you underestimate the malice of the average tech company

This is only true for experiments funded by the government. In this case the experiment was funded solely by Google.

IRB approval is required for human subject research funded by private parties, too; not just government. But only really in the medical field.

>But only really in the medical field.

Looking it up, the exception where it is required is specifically for clinical investigations regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.

Does this apply to Netflix, Amazon, Disneys, and many other streaming providers's "What to watch next? Recommended..." of sorts (or music/podcast streaming services)...

Routing traffic affects not only the drivers using Google Maps, but also everyone around them IN REALTIME.

Netflix personalized recommendations affect only the individual, not those around them who are not using Netflix.

Oh yes, good point! Stand corrected!

You're acting in bad faith attaching "every change" to what the parent said.

But this isn't that crazy? Most businesses require government approval for changes that have community effects... that's the entire point of government. Stuff like construction permits and regulation around structures, water usage, pollution, building architecture. Mining companies are required to assess environmental impacts. Companies making RF devices need to get confirmation on how the devices affect people and other devices.

And that's not even considering market share/monopoly status, which also regularly invites more scrutiny.

When the government proscribes discretionary permitting to those items you mentioned corruption and scarcity follow. It is exorbitantly expensive and difficult to build a house, a powerplant, or a mine in this country. For which we all currently pay for in cost of living.

Does the tempo matter?

Like compare changing live routing to publishing a paper map showing alternate routes.

In either case it seems to me that the vehicle operator should be most responsible for the impact of the route that they use.

..you good bro? Anyway, things are improving but that doesn’t mean people can’t have a say in what tradeoffs they are willing to accept in return for progress.

A lot of progress has externalities and the benefits and downsides of progress are rarely equally distributed.

Uhhh, I don't know what you're reading, but the comment I was replied to was complaining about the "subscription economy" and not having enough time to watch movies as evidence why life is getting worse.

> A lot of progress has externalities and the benefits and downsides of progress are rarely equally distributed.

The vast majority of humanity has benefited from progress, compared to most decades and certainly centuries in the past. So I don't really know what your point is here?

everyone’s seen ads before, mind if I put a giant ad in the sky for everyone to look at?

Don't give these ghouls ideas.

The idea of putting a PepsiCo or Coca-Cola ad on the moon dates backs to the 60's, when we first went there.