> We remain committed to the private and public sector consensus that AI should not be used for domestic mass surveillance or autonomous weaponry without appropriate human oversight.

And starts the lying to our faces. The public and private (from your own employees!) consensus is that it should not be used for those things at all, regardless of “human oversight.”

I hate this part: `domestic mass surveillance`

So the rest of the world is fine to spy on, its the domestic part they don't agree with. So go on, destroy lives all around the world, helping the powers at be build the fascist state. Its fine to use Gemini to tell what building to blow up; its fine for Gemini to wrongly identify people and cause hundreds or thousands of deaths based on the telling the military who to attack.

Strains are very real and the general concept exists in not only many other farmed plants as well, but domesticated animals, like dogs. All members of the same species, specifically bred for a certain phenotype through manual selection.

Now some people might say that X strain is good for sleep, Y strain is good for anxiety, Z strain is good for creativity, etc… That type of “phenotype” is much harder to quantify and I agree a lot of that type of stuff could be mumbo jumbo, though there could be something to it. But overall high THC strains (more stimulating) vs high CBD strains (more relaxing) have a clear difference.

However flavor is also a big differentiator among strains and that is much more easily quantifiable through the terpene/flavonoid profile, and plain old smelling and tasting. And people have been breeding plants for specific smells and tastes for thousands of years, so it’s not like this is some new concept specific to cannabis.

As someone who has seen srcset and picture but never used them in practice, the background was kind of useful. but I can understand people finding it annoying

If you take their claim that they don’t use vulnerabilities in their products as true, then I don’t see a contradiction. If it isn’t true, then obviously there is a contradiction.

But your considering of all methods that enable fingerprinting as vulnerabilities is your own opinion. There are definitely measurable signals that are based on a user’s behavior, rather than data exposed by the browser itself.

As others have said, a complete dataset for that is basically impossible. You would have to monitor every cell type in an individual from the moment of conception until death. Maybe in a couple hundred years we’ll have nanotech robots that could do that, and our overall morals and ideas of what constitutes ethical research will have changed enough that we allow the creation of such humans with these robots inside them.

This seems so obvious to me. Why would you ever put information regarding a legal case you’re party to into an AI chat

Why would you run segments of your profitable business through a chat? It's just as large of a vulnerability.

Losing your business and income isn't the same as being charged with a crime and jailed.

Of all the weird shit people get into with AI chat bots (dating, therapy, thinking they're sentient), asking one questions about your court case seems like one of the most understandable, even if it's still dumb.

And slowly siphon your personal essence away from yourself and into the model.

Why do you need to ask any AI questions regarding your health every day?

Because I am going through a series of health issues.

wouldn’t it be “usage based pricing” not “pricing based usage”

I have no idea but when reading the article my mind immediately went to businesses having dashers take photos of competing businesses as some type of weird crowdsourced corporate espionage.

I read it as "secret shopper/diner" kind of deal, so corporate can fail that local franchise for failing some rating for the burger...