5431 stories
·
17 followers

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Gift

1 Share


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
It's the one time this sort of thing worked.


Today's News:



Red Button mashing provided by SMBC RSS Plus. If you consume this comic through RSS, you may want to support Zach's Patreon for like a $1 or something at least especially since this is scraping the site deeper than provided.
Read the whole story
mareino
2 hours ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

When did Google get so f-ing weird?

1 Comment and 2 Shares

I recently had an experience while doing a simple Google search that was so profoundly weird that it stopped me in my tracks.

Understanding this Google search experience involves understanding a niche mid-2010s basketball meme, so bear with me for a minute. In 2014 the Philadelphia 76ers drafted Dario Saric, who was playing basketball professionally in Turkey at the time. He announced his intention to finish out his contract in Turkey, meaning he wouldn't come to the USA join the Sixers for a couple of years. There was a joke within the fan community that Dario was "never coming over" which became sort of a shibboleth for part of the fanbase.

I saw Dario's name mentioned in an NBA article recently and I wanted to find some of those old funny tweets about him from the 2010s, so I Googled simply "hes never coming over dario". I assumed I would be either find nothing (maybe I was remembering the phrasing wrong) or find old Tweets/Reddit posts from that time.

Instead, Google did what Google does in 2026 and gave me an AI overview. These used to bother me but at this point I'm mostly ok with them, they're sometimes helpful. Here's what the AI Overview said:

Google, a search engine which does not have human emotions, assumed that I had been spurned by a man in my life named Dario and decided what I wanted was an empathetic digital friend. What I wanted was some links, but that's not what Google does in 2026. Expanding the AI overview to see the full answer gave me this:

What in the fucking hell? I think this was the moment I, the frog, noticed the pot had been boiling for a while. In what universe is it Google's job to console me and be an empathetic listener rather than just find what I am looking for on the internet? In what way does this "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful"? Maybe if I had loaded up a Gemini app with a chat interface this would be somewhat acceptable, but I'm using a search engine! Google has seriously lost the plot.

If I scroll down a few hundred pixels below the AI slop, Google did have exactly what I was looking for:

Regardless of what you think of AI or chatbots, I think it's pretty obvious this is just plain weird. Have we gotten to the point where we have to constantly be in a parasocial dialogue with our computers? Is it so hard to imagine that some parts of search were just fine before LLMs?

I'm not sure how to feel about all of this. Maybe I should go talk to my friend Google, it's always so nice to me.

Read the whole story
mareino
2 hours ago
reply
Also notice that Gemini's main proposed solution was to cut off contact with another human being
Washington, District of Columbia
acdha
2 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Nearly 200 people wrongly identified on Nevada’s voter rolls as non-citizens | US voting rights | The Guardian

2 Shares

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wrongly identified 185 people on Nevada’s voter rolls as non-citizens, state officials said this week, escalating concerns over the shoddy methodology the government is using to raise fear about non-citizen voting ahead of the midterm elections.

In July, Donald Trump gave a speech saying DHS had found a combined 278,000 non-citizens on the rolls in Nevada, California, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Follow-up letters to each of those states weakened the claim, saying there only could be as many as 278,000 non-citizens on the rolls, including up to 15,903 in Nevada.

In August, DHS officials told staffers in the Nevada secretary of state’s office that they had reviewed the numbers and confirmed only 185 were non-citizens. DHS officials said they still needed to review more than 14,000 records.

But on Wednesday, Nevada election officials said they had reviewed the 185 records DHS sent them and confirmed they were US citizens. “As for the 185 individuals, our records indicate that they were citizens. You have provided nothing of substance to suggest otherwise,” Greg Ott, a deputy attorney general, wrote to DHS this week in an email obtained by the New York Times and Nevada Independent.

DHS did not return a request for comment.

In his email, Ott lamented DHS had not been transparent about the methodology DHS had used to flag alleged non-citizens nor had it shared adequate information. When Nevada officials requested DHS provide the first name, last name, address, and any other data point DHS officials matched, the department said they were only going to provide the voter ID number.

In Nevada, a voter registration number can belong to multiple people, he wrote. Each of Nevada’s counties used to maintain their own registration system, but Nevada recently transitioned to a single statewide voter registration system and gave voters new state voter identification numbers. “As a result, the same number may appear at different points in time in connection with different voter records,” he wrote.

“The number also doesn’t tell us whether an individual was born in the United States, naturalized, derived citizenship through a parent, or holds any particular immigration status. Election records commonly reflect the information supplied during registration,” he added. “For example, if someone registered to vote in 1970, the registration record may be incomplete; the name, address, and date of birth may be incomplete, changed, entered differently, or shared by more than one person. A number that matches a voter record thus establishes only that a number exists in, or once existed in, a voter registration system.”

The news outlet Votebeat also reported earlier this month that election officials in Pennsylvania have also pushed DHS for information on its basis for claiming there were as many as 14,576 non-citizens on its rolls. In an August letter obtained by Votebeat, Al Schmidt, Pennsylvania’s top election official, said DHS representatives had indicated they did not have “high confidence” in that number.

Read the whole story
mareino
2 hours ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
acdha
4 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

Antitrust lawsuit filed against AI companies challenges coordinated slowdown efforts | AP News

1 Comment and 2 Shares

A new lawsuit claims Anthropic, OpenAI, SpaceXAI and Google made an illegal deal to slow the pace of their respective AI development.

The lawsuit, which was filed Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, argues that the leading AI companies violated antitrust laws when they agreed to coordinate slowdown efforts, and that doing so would reduce the value consumers get for paid AI subscriptions.

The coordination largely took place on Sept. 12, the lawsuit argues, when Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei published an essay urging for industrywide cooperation on decelerating advancements in favor of enhanced safety measures. That same day, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, SpaceXAI CEO Elon Musk and Google DeepMind’s co-founder and chair Demis Hassabis each publicly responded to Amodei’s proposals in agreement.

But the lawsuit also alleges that the coordination began to take shape months earlier. It points to a statement from July 2026 that high-ranking employees from several of the leading AI labs signed that acknowledged the “intense competitive pressure not to unilaterally slow” development. That statement called on the government to support a global effort to slow automated AI development.

It is clear that an agreement among the chief rivals in AI that their progress “should be slower than competition would otherwise produce has an anticompetitive effect on consumers,” the plaintiffs argue.

Lawyers representing four named plaintiffs, who pay for subscriptions to ChatGPT, Claude, Grok or Gemini, are bringing the lawsuit on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other paid subscribers to those services.

The plaintiffs don’t object to the companies individually deciding to slow their own progress in favor of safety. They instead argue in the complaint that antitrust laws forbid them from taking the “shortcut” of agreeing to “substitute collective restraint for individual accountability.” A competitive market allows for responsibility and genuine progress, the lawsuit argues.

“AI will quickly spin out of human control and could kill us all if we allow AI safety and protocol ... to be controlled by private self-serving agreements between the world’s most powerful ‘for profit’ technology companies,” said Nick Rowley, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

Representatives for Anthropic, OpenAI, Google and SpaceXAI did not immediately respond to a request for comment Saturday.

In his initial essay proposing the slowdown, Amodei acknowledged potential antitrust challenges, writing that it would be helpful for the U.S. government to mediate “or at least enable” these cross-lab discussions. The government wouldn’t need to participate, he wrote, but it would need to “issue a narrow waiver for certain kinds of safety conversations.”

In response, Altman said on social media that OpenAI welcomes the idea of a “federal framework that sets consistent safety requirements,” but said “we do not believe we need to wait for an antitrust exemption or legislation to begin the work of providing this confidence.”

While the recent conversations about pacing development were spurred by increasing concerns about AI evading human control, several leaders in the AI space have long talked about developing a shared set of standards or otherwise coordinating to ensure safety efforts remain paramount.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit contend they are not against the AI companies asking Congress, the White House or any other agency to develop AI regulation, nor are they against the companies asking for an antitrust exemption.

But achieving that kind of collaboration with the federal government could be an uphill battle.

President Donald Trump rejected the calls for regulation on social media. He has claimed that any efforts to limit the technology are part of a “conspiracy.” He called into question why the industry leaders would be calling for regulation that, he says, “if strongly implemented, will drive them into oblivion and bankruptcy.” Trump said Saturday on social media that he is forming an AI task force and will appoint an “AI czar,” but he provided scant detail.

The Trump administration has been vocal about wanting American AI labs to outpace and excel against Chinese competition. While several Democratic leaders and candidates have called for sweeping action on AI regulation, Republicans have largely mirrored Trump’s position.

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, said in a recent Senate hearing that “there is no world” in which he would agree to give “the most powerful companies in the history of the world” an exemption from antitrust laws to collaborate, arguing that they could collude together and stifle competition.

Read the whole story
mareino
7 days ago
reply
Of all the ways for the AI Slowdown Pact to fail, I did not expect the Sherman Antitrust Act
Washington, District of Columbia
acdha
9 days ago
reply
Washington, DC
Share this story
Delete

i will be DAMNED if i lose to a CONCEPT

2 Shares
archive - contact - sexy exciting merchandise - search - about
September 16th, 2026next

September 16th, 2026: This is of course a work of fiction - I achieved inner peace YEARS ago and not gonna lie: it's been RAD. Just like... peace for DAYS.

– Ryan

Read the whole story
mareino
8 days ago
reply
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete

There is a thread that runs between

1 Comment

There is a thread that runs between

  • Contemporary left-wing purity politics (the “of course we don’t want people like that in our coalition” business, which has caused so much ink to be spilled of late)
  • Contemporary right-wing immigration politics
  • Contemporary anti-homeless politics
  • The way that contemporary business leaders talk about hiring and retention

…which is, of course, the basic idea that you can deal with problem people (and the problems they cause) by just Not Having Them Around. The urge isn’t to reach for rehabilitation or reeducation, or for punishment, or even for exploitation or destruction, but for banishment.

I am not speaking out against this logic, in any kind of generalized way. There are obviously many situations in which you can, and should, address your problems by trying to put an access barrier between yourself and the problem people. A lot of my social advice boils down to Did you know that you can just build a walled garden?, and that’s probably more useful than any political advice I have to offer.

But it’s also obvious, if you think about it for a moment, that this logic breaks down at scale. The problem people might not be around your neck of the woods, but they have to be around somewhere. The more of the overall system you’re trying to manage, the less responsible it is to deal with problems solely by shunting them off onto someone else.

Like every age, our age is wedded to its own particular customs and social technologies, so no surprise that it’s got this kind of bias. But it would be nice to see more attempts to solve large-scale problems of this kind that don’t basically amount to access barriers.

[And of course this isn’t even getting into object-level questions like Which people are really the problem people? and What really constitutes a problem?]

Read the whole story
mareino
10 days ago
reply
The oldest social problem of all time -- annoying people. How do you make the institution bear the emotional burden?
Washington, District of Columbia
Share this story
Delete
Next Page of Stories