FilesForWallabies

I wanted to disagree, but I think I can only disagree about the time of death.

JFC

Everytime the issue of surveillance comes up on my local news stations there is some official from the police or Flock. If they interview someone with concerns, it’s never someone from EFF or a privacy advocate, but a random person on the street who has concerns but thinks the cameras have been integral to solving crimes.

Not really. During 45/47’s first term he basically got rid of fines for those who didn’t sign up. Luckily, until recently, ACA users got federal and sometimes state subsidies that allowed good-very good plans to be affordable and Medicaid was broadened for many who couldn’t afford ACA plans, except in Republican run states. After the last budget bill, basically all the additional federal subsidies for ACA and Medicaid/Medi-cal were removed. In addition, work requirements and additional requirements to receive exceptions will force more people off of Medicaid/Medi-cal.

For this administration, the fewer people with insurance the better, especially if they need it.

As far as policy guidelines go, I think they’re quite reasonable. I read the entire policy and the staff comments on the page. They lay out expectations: Humans must write the articles and verify everything that an AI output claims comes from a source such as through transcribing interviews or summarizing documents. They lay out that not following the policy is a violation which leads to the authors or editors being on the hook for those failures, likely tied to Ars or Condé Nast’s disciplinary procedures. These would be the reactive controls through accountability for failures, which there may yet be.
Per the document and the subsequent comments, they confirm that editors and reporters both have to verify that reporting is accurate. That is a reasonable amount of proactive controls. If there becomes a pattern of failures either in the amount of them or a lack of accountability, then it would be fair to assume their output is AI slop, but I think that’s currently too early to claim. You’re under no obligation to assume they’ll be successful or that they are sincere, but it’s a clearly written reader-facing policy.