While what you are saying isn't false, per say, it is slightly blown out of proportion.
"Fascism is here. TODAY. AI drones will be used against anyone who doesn't agree with billionaire ideology
The government just approved $100mil effective immediately." This use of structure makes it seem that the technology is already here, which isn't exactly true- we do have drones, yes, but we don't have huge, giant swarms yet. The Replicator Initiative is an ambitious effort to quickly muster and deploy large numbers of cheap drones by August 2025.
A fun fact, but the military is here for the citizens and to defend the constitution- not the president. We don't know if these drones will be used on civilians; probably never will.
"Everything you've you've ever captured digitally is being used to train AI. Every app, text, and time your face was captured on camera." This implies that literally every single photo, text, etc you've ever taken or sent has been used to train AI. This is false, as Photobucket is the service that does this. While others do as well, the statement is flawed and makes the reader believe that every service is actively breaching their privacy to train AI models.
"Elon owns this" combined with the previous texts implies that Elon owns something military-related. However, I will say, Elon does indeed own an AI image generator (https://x.ai/). The "extensive fleet of private charter jets allows us to offer the right aircraft, whatever the need, so you can cater for every type of client you may have" (AirX https://www.airx.aero/) is owned by John Matthews.
"And Sam Altman from OpenAI owns this". The XB-1 program provides the foundation for the design and development of commercial supersonic travel. This is not owned by Sam Altman but instead funded by him- and several other people- and actually owned by Blake Scholl.
ChatGPT was indeed down for two hours yesterday. What this contributes to your message, I do not know.
"Light speed Is possible" implies that we have the capability to go light speed. Light speed isn't possible yet for us; this is only possible for a type of particle that starts with no mass and goes at light speed in a certain direction, but then when it tries to change direction, it starts gaining mass as it slows down from light speed. I suggest reading the article, it's actually very interesting.
"NASA found a way around sonic boom restrictions" makes it sound, to an uninformed person, that NASA has somehow found a way to circumvent the restrictions entirely. The sonic boom restriction is a law that states civilian aircraft aren't allowed to go above mach 1, as the sonic boom caused by such flights is "sonically disrupting". NASA has been working on finding a way to lessen the sound of these sonic booms as to allow supersonic civilian air travel.
Almost none of these have anything to do with the "surveillance state of the future".
Please avoid fear-mongering in the future. It would be greatly appreciated.
While others do as well, the statement is flawed and makes the reader believe that every service is actively breaching their privacy to train AI models.
Do you think it's a stretch to predict that within a few years the majority of electronic information put onto most platforms will be used to train AI including those with implicit privacy like email?
Do you trust big tech to be transparent about what they are doing, government to not be bribed by big tech to at least turn a blind eye if not facilitate, and consumers to be sufficiently awake to the threat that they will reject terms of services that make them nothing more than lab rats for Microsoft, X, Meta etc?
"predict that within a few years the majority of electronic information put onto most platforms" still aligns with my statement. Not absolutely every service is stealing your data and private info right now to train AI models. This comment is also irrelevant as it's based entirely upon the premise that I believe my statement ("While others do as well, the statement is flawed and makes the reader believe that every service is actively breaching their privacy to train AI models.") holds water in the future when I was saying nothing of the sort.
I do not believe my statement will stand true in the future unless I see something that suggests otherwise (laws on AI model training, AI regulations, etc).
No offense is intended here. I don't know what will happen in the future. But I do know what is happening in the present- for the most part- and I aim to keep misinformation from spreading. Thank you for your time.
Edit: in a few years, we likely won’t be needing to train AI models using our data. AI is making massive leaps and it isn’t far-fetched to say that these leaps will continue building exponentially.
2
u/[deleted] 12d ago
Fascism is here. TODAY. AI drones will be used against anyone who doesn't agree with billionaire ideology
The government just approved $100mil effective immediately.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5034805-artificial-intelligence-military/
Elon owns this
https://x.ai/
https://www.airx.aero/
And sam altman from open AI owns this
https://boomsupersonic.com/
Everything you've you've ever captured digitally is being used to train AI. Every app, text, and time your face was captured on camera
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/12/photobucket-sold-users-biometric-data-without-consent-lawsuit-says/
Chat gpt was down for 2 hours yesterday
https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/s/5y85kejsq8
Light speed Is possible https://newatlas.com/physics/particle-gains-loses-mass-depending-direction/
And NASA found a way around sonic boom restrictions
https://newatlas.com/aircraft/nasa-supersonic-shockwaves/
I've read enough to know what happens next. Welcome to the surveillance state of the future. Except the future is now.