You've erected a strawman. The argument was not "free speech doesn't apply to companies", it was the exact opposite, i.e. a company's prerogative to control speech on their platform comes downstream of their own free speech rights. This remains true today and the article does not argue otherwise.
No, the argument is definitely "you have no expectation of free speech if you're using e.g. facebook to deliver that speech". Which is certainly an opinion to have, but in my view a silly one. You might as well say that if you chose to send mail using a "private company", it's that's company's "free speech right" to inspect your mail and throw it away if they don't agree with the contents.
> if you chose to send mail using a "private company", it's that's company's "free speech right" to inspect your mail and throw it away if they don't agree with the contents.
That's somewhat true currently.
If you ship mail or packages with UPS, FedEx, Etc they are allowed to open and inspect what you send. The USPS is not allowed to do that, not without a warrant. When people ship drugs via mail they use the USPS for that reason, that it's more difficult for them to obtain warrants to discover suspected drug shipments while a UPS or FedEx will happily open any package they suspect may not be legal to send.
First of all, there's a massive difference between transporting a private package from point A to point B vs hosting someone's speech on a privately owned platform and broadcasting that speech through a privately owned network, with wider consequences that do not come into play when dealing with private correspondences between parties.
Next, paying a fee to a private company to ship your package confers certain obligations about what you are entitled to, when you are utilizing a privately owned platform for free, you are not entitled to anything.
Finally, a private company is certainly within their rights to refuse to ship your package based on an any legal criteria they choose.
> when you are utilizing a privately owned platform for free, you are not entitled to anything.
Factually wrong. Both when paying, and when using something "for free", there's a contract in place (terms & conditions, etc.), and that contract also needs to obey local laws. I don't know if you've ever heard of GDPR, but that's one example of things you are entitled to when using a "privately owned platform for free". Even the USA has laws regarding this, though less strong than GDPR (look it up).
> refuse to ship your package based on an any legal criteria they choose
The question here is what is a "legal criteria". And just because the law is a certain way today, doesn't mean that's the way it should be. It used to be legal to kick people out of restaurants because you didn't like the color of their skin, it's not today. It used to be legal to fire people because they were members of a union or other political group, it's not today. (All depending on your country's laws of course.)
Also, the point of an analogy, is to illustrate a point through a comparable situation. Pointing out that there's a "massive difference" but never explaining what the difference is and how it affects the validity of the comparison, is just a (very common) misunderstanding of what an analogy even is.
> if you've ever heard of GDPR, but that's one example of things you are entitled to when using a "privately owned platform for free"
GDPR is not an "entitlement", its regulation governing how sites can operate with your data, it doesn't entitle you to service.
> The question here is what is a "legal criteria"
You don't have to agree with the legal criteria, but there is no question as to whether it's legal to arbitrarily ban users based on the content of their posts.
> Pointing out that there's a "massive difference" but never explaining what the difference is and how it affects the validity of the comparison
I went into great detail to explain why the analogy is bad, it's up to you if you want to acknowledge it. This isn't 2016, the absurd framing that tries to pretend that you are entitled access to social media platforms on the basis of free speech is tired and obviously wrong.
This will never be worth the risk. Every plumbing job is a unique challenge, you can't just spin up 10000 agents to brute force your way to a correctly cut pipe, one mistake and you've destroyed a house or office.
No my point is that free speech isn't a spectrum, we either can say whatever we want or we can't. As far as whether we have it, no in the US we don't have it today as certain speech is still made illegal.
I don't cast free speech in absolute terms, I take issue with those that do since it isn't a spectrum.
Free speech isn't a spectrum in the same way altruism isn't a spectrum. We probably all agree there is no true speech, so we change "free" (as in true freedom) to "free" (as in "liberty") and establish a spectrum anyway.
No one wants "true" free speech anyway. an age of social media + deepfakes means true free speech is legalizing slander/libel. And we know the lies will persist much longer than it deserves.
As well as inciting violence. We don't even need to reach "hate speech" on the spectrum in order to talk about intolerable speech everyone agrees should be punished on.
I'm impressed that you can speak for everyone collectively here.
I take issue with any law that limits speech, including libel, regardless of who says it. Such laws remove agency, and therefore a level of responsibility, from those who hear the speech and choose to act on it.
In the same way that I strongly disagree with laying any blame on a woman for dressing a certain way before being attacked, I don't blame a person for saying something before another person takes an action we've deemed illegal.
> RSI is the play and it’s already happening. Our work is easier and faster and anyone that claims otherwise I have a very hard time taking serious.
No it isn't. Doing work more efficiently through the use of LLMs is not RSI. RSI requires a closed loop automated LLM iteration process which we are not at all close to right now.
Do the air bags in your car go off at random while you're in traffic? If not, then why do you think a system using these jets to avoid accidents would?
Also where does the habit of ending angry messages with lol or lmao come from, which I only see here on HN?
"After the air bags were replaced and the vehicle was involved in a crash, the air bag inflators malfunctioned and ruptured, sending large metal fragments into drivers’ chests, necks, eyes and faces, leading to death or severe injury."
So yes, safety features sometimes have flaws.
> If not, then why do you think a system using these jets to avoid accidents would?
For starters, airbags are reactive to an impact, not predictive in anticipation of it.
"We're going to crash" is harder to assess than "hey a crumple sensor in the front bumper just got wiped out".
(The airbag is also deeply unlikely to obliterate a different car, pedestrian, or bike during deployment. They're simply not comparable to a rocket engine on the outside of the car!)
And no one was using AI for serious work a few years ago. Technology develops and moves forward. Practically every new car and motorcycle today has safety features which depend on computers. And they function in practice.
Trucks all have pneumatic brakes and an air compressor on-board. So that part is nothing new. A system of air jets could possibly be implemented as a correcting measure if a truck is overturning. There's no AI needed for the truck to know it's about to overturn. And trucks overturning are also some of the most serious and most dangerous common accidents in traffic.
But self proclaimed "hackers" are too busy with LMFAOing and LOLing at any suggestion or speculation on how technology could be useful in practice.
> Also where does the habit of ending angry messages with lol
I'm using lol here as an expression of rueful delight, not anger. I'm not being sarcastic - the mental image of vehicles autonomously leaping through traffic is really funny to me. However, I'm slightly perturbed by the lack of parsimonious thinking.
> When I retrain its original architecture, which still produces messy deep layers, and follow the least legible neurons I can find, they turn out to be overgrowing locally into reasonable, adjacent territory.
It's interesting to observe that human reasoning is still the barometer of what "reasonably adjacent" means in the context of a NN's structure.
reply