- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se
The biometric ID project has been halted and investigated in multiple countries, but it recently partnered with Tinder, Zoom, and Docusign to verify users.
You must log in or # to comment.
So a Sam Altman company is coming to solve the problem of too much unidentifiable AI slop on the internet. A problem that has in no small part, been created by OpenAI, another Sam Altman company.
Hard pass.
All these AI companies are into deep and they cant get out of thier AI debt hole which will soon come down. Cant afford all those AI DATACENTERS nor they can generate any profit from it, what better way to convince many counties in the west to adopt AI verfication, so they can get a revenue stream from the governments.
reddit also uses OPEN AI in one form or another, they likely will be the most compliant to require it,.
I can avoid pretty much any tech company by simply not using the product. Docusign, however, is fucking everwhere in modern US life. I’ve had local government agencies advertise a certain wait period etc. which is dependent on using Docusign on their website, otherwise there is a weeks (or months) long delay on them mailing things you have to sign because why would they ever print them in the office? Based on the nature of the company, I am not surprised, but them being onboard will make bureaucracy that everyone has to deal with immensely more annoying if you opt out of using their products.
My employer uses them too for certain documents, and I gotta say, I’m not a fan of their tech side either. The contact I’m working with is a dear, always on top of getting my questions to the relevant engineers and getting a timely response back, but he can’t make gold from straw either.
FWIW I had to use an equivalent which didn’t work on my setup. I emailed the company, they said try this, try that, which I did, still no dice. They emailed me a form to print, sign, take a photo of, and email them back. I did and the 3rd party that relied on their service was notified.
So… it’s OK to be “annoying” with this kind of services if it doesn’t work respective of your setup itself respective of your concerns.
I’m not saying it will also work, or that it’s efficient, just that it’s a possibility.
Yeah, that’s true. It does however even pop up in doctors offices, or anything legally binding. Things where the your appointment will be ruined if you don’t sign digitally.
Fuck all the way off with that shit
I could not have said it better 👏💯
this is fitting
remember all the times I said “AI is fascism”?
is it getting clearer now?
I’m surprised he didn’t name it Mark of the Beast instead, while claiming the pope is the real antichrist.
Peter thiel marks the puppets he controls: Altman, Jd vance, Karp.
Yeah, I’m not doing that. Go fuck yourselves.
The problem is companies like docusign you might not have a choice not to use it, for a job for instance. This is pernicious, and will force us to hand over even more of our information, accepting a thousand page terms of service to do necessary tasks, with no government protection (none enforced even when there,) to any significant degree.
In sane places, large terms of service are unenforceable due to the lack of reasonable expectation that they were read and understood. The USA is just a dystopic cesspool of anti-consumerism.
Most of such terms were unenforceable in the US too, until around 2001 or so, and it just got worse from there. The supreme court made it official in the 10’s sometime if I recall, endorsing even making consumers or employees sign away their rights to sue to either buy something or get hired.
All that wage theft from minimum wage workers, which exploded in the bush years, happened with employees unable to sue, instead only being able to bring a binding arbitration suit of the employer’s choosing. And knowing them they would make the claimant pay a big filing fee to start the process.
It also used to be that if one part of such a contract was found to be illegal, the entire thing would be thrown out, not any more.
It also used to be that if one part of such a contract was found to be illegal, the entire thing would be thrown out, not any more.
Not necessarily.
A contract is supposed to be a mutually-beneficial arrangement. I sell you a car for its market value. I work for you for a market price on my time for the position and my expertise.
If there’s a small mistake both sides are willing to amend - there probably won’t even be a suit.
Even if there is a suit, most places’ laws prefer nudging toe contract to the side “less off” in such cases.
Only when there are unreasonable demands by one side, or the contract is so one-sided it can’t be amended is when it gets thrown out completely.
Which is supposed to be almost never.
Therefore, I don’t think the rules themselves changed as much as the goalposts and the reasonableness window have. Quality of life and purchase power is decreasing steadily basically since Reagan.
Contemporary EULAs are taken as acceptable and a fact of life when even 10 years ago T&Cs were laughed at which were much less unreasonable in comparison.
Other types of contracts follow the same general direction, with employment ones being among the absolute worst.
That last part isn’t necessarily bad. There could be an honest mistake in a contract both parties are otherwise fine with. As for the rest… I’m so glad I emigrated.
The last part is always bad, even if theoretically it may not be. When you have a hundred to a thousand terms and conditions being pushed on you for a near immediate signature, that’s because they can add that one part being illegal doesn’t make the rest unenforceable, and now instead of a single page of terms we have a hundred.
There is a reason the Courts made that rule of disqualifying the entire contract of such contracts if one part was illegal, and they have rules and tests for when that applies too in such cases to prevent any legitimate mistakes from cancelling an entire contract.
Standard contracts in the US include a severability clause anymore; I don’t remember the last time I saw a contract without one (as a non-lawyer who reads everything I sign).
An MIT Technology Review investigation reveals World’s unethical practices when onboarding test users across Africa and Asia, including deceptive marketing practices. The investigation also says that World was gathering personal data beyond iris scans, including heartbeat, breathing, and other vital signs, and doing so without obtaining meaningful informed consent.
Insane. When businesses are building massive systems to identify and track the citizenry, the government should step in and stomp it out. Instead, the government is mandating that it proceeds.
The system is functioning as expected. The system must be destroyed.
That’s the neat part when you blur the lines between the government and the private sector. So-called leaders who are interested in power, control, and “winning” more than upholding their oaths of office can just use the private sector to do the things the government is restricted from doing. Then when their businesses can’t compete on their own, they can lean on the legal + force options the government has.
I’m starting to think this habit we have of electing selfish sociopathic bad-faith actors to powerful positions of service is less than optimal.
LOL. nope.
Oh god… They really want to track every humans on this planet. And we all know for what purposes
As someone in a sanctioned country, I actually approve of yet another “official” identifier since it will be used by someone making me less dependent upon my local ID, and since technically everyone not in an Indian or sub-Saharan African village is already being tracked. There too probably.
They already do. They just want to make it easier
And also have the ability to turn off people’s legal existence when they get up to too much anti-corporate shenanigans.
“Unperson”
Anti-citizen one, you are accused of multiple anti-civil violations. Wait for civil protection teams in the submission position.
The US can do whatever they want in their country but leave the rest of us alone. We’re actually doing much better without you. It would be even better if you stopped interfering ie start an illegal war, in the name of Israel. Than we can all move on without the US.
the problem is, a lot of shitty laws are passing in europe (looking at you france) but havent made it through our system yet. time will tell.
That’s true, the fuckery is strong here too and it requires a lot of pressure to hold it back.
Canada and Mexico should combine forces and take over the US.
Give Hawaii back to the native Hawaiians.
Canada takes Alaska.
Mexico takes Texas and New Mexico and detain all the pro ICE fascists.
And let Cuba be a normal state again that can trade freely with the world.
Canada and Mexico should combine forces and take over the US.
Why the fuck would we do that. We have enough dumb fat violent racists.
Canada world police > United States world police
UN world police based on a wide mandate. Yes not as effective but the only way to real peace.
No no no that’s not how it works
I would be so happy to be living in a part of Canada.
You’re officially invited.
Fuck off, Sam
From the country so adament against a nationwide ID, this is rich
Oh you misunderstood, nationwide IDs are the mark of the beast.
Being forced to give your biometric data to a company trying to create artificial consciousness? That’s just capitalism baby.
US: Are we the bad guys?
Morgan Freeman: It was at that moment that the people realized they were.
No, they didn’t answer the question; they only asked it. Gotta see the follow-through. This makes me think of the Palantir articles about how in reality their employees have been annoyed about being painted as bad guys, instead of genuinely questioning themselves.
Again, we don’t have to use any of this. There are alternatives to all of those products.
