Louis Ingenthron

Software engineering contractor/consultant in Florida specializing in .NET C# #WebDev, plus #Indie #GameDev in #MonoGame, #Stride, and #Godot.
I like complex simulations and enjoy writing procedural generation algorithms for fun.

#Pilot in training. Burgeoning fan of #Aviation in general.

Fan of #1A jurisprudence and the kind of #FreeSpeech that applies to everyone equally.

Pro-Democracy. Pro-Rights. Pro-Freedom. In that order.
Politically moderate, but a registered Democrat since January 7th 2021.

He/Him 🏳‍🌈

High risk of rants, especially with the lack of character limit.

Public Key

npub1a5getq5m0jad5vnfuevt8mkx9h07pw8jnuqkjzhnt2rkydnuunhs9r6v5u

NIP-05 Address

louisingenthron_at_qoto.org@momostr.pink

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsw6yv4s2dhewk6xf57vk9namrzmhlqhref7qtfpte44pmzxe7wfmca6xmk4

Author Public Key

npub1a5getq5m0jad5vnfuevt8mkx9h07pw8jnuqkjzhnt2rkydnuunhs9r6v5u

Show more details

Published at

2024-09-02T03:21:22Z

Kind type

0 Metadata

Event JSON

{ "id": "220e94fdec501accff6480207a6f182340f842c286a8b29fe7813ad6c1b83ae6", "pubkey": "ed1195829b7cbada3269e658b3eec62ddfe0b8f29f01690af35a8762367ce4ef", "created_at": 1725247282, "kind": 0, "tags": [ [ "t", "gamedev" ], [ "t", "webdev" ], [ "t", "indie" ], [ "t", "godot" ], [ "t", "freespeech" ], [ "t", "pilot" ], [ "t", "aviation" ], [ "t", "1a" ], [ "t", "stride" ], [ "t", "monogame" ], [ "proxy", "https://qoto.org/users/LouisIngenthron", "activitypub" ], [ "L", "pink.momostr" ], [ "l", "pink.momostr.activitypub:https://qoto.org/users/LouisIngenthron", "pink.momostr" ], [ "-" ] ], "content": "{\"name\":\"Louis Ingenthron\",\"about\":\"Software engineering contractor/consultant in Florida specializing in .NET C# #WebDev, plus #Indie #GameDev in #MonoGame, #Stride, and #Godot.\\nI like complex simulations and enjoy writing procedural generation algorithms for fun.\\n\\n#Pilot in training. Burgeoning fan of #Aviation in general.\\n\\nFan of #1A jurisprudence and the kind of #FreeSpeech that applies to everyone equally.\\n\\nPro-Democracy. Pro-Rights. Pro-Freedom. In that order.\\nPolitically moderate, but a registered Democrat since January 7th 2021.\\n\\nHe/Him 🏳‍🌈\\n\\nHigh risk of rants, especially with the lack of character limit.\",\"website\":\"https://qoto.org/@LouisIngenthron\",\"picture\":\"https://media.social.qoto.org/accounts/avatars/000/801/019/original/336f5789d7a12b73.jpg\",\"banner\":\"https://media.social.qoto.org/accounts/headers/000/801/019/original/d73d714773fa21f3.png\",\"nip05\":\"louisingenthron_at_qoto.org@momostr.pink\"}", "sig": "419752831142568adab41ff5b3465018087402d02f82f562f6c1258b5b479cb8096ce1fb394cff1272bde1835a4434e4c1fc83a85d71439db06446274fab46b1" }

Last Notes

2024-06-14 18:02:05

- reply

I've already conceded, long ago, that companies that allow such systems to speak for them should be liable for the results.
But that's very different from a chatbot with a disclaimer.
Nobody is stupid for believing a corporate bot that lies to them about a sale. But they are absolutely stupid if they try to get facts from ChatGPT, ignoring all the disclaimers, and then later rely on those "facts" in a critical situation.

2024-06-14 17:54:09

- reply

Who exactly is being forced to use AI?

2024-06-14 17:35:12

- reply

> But my point is that users cannot be expected to understand this difference.
That's some nanny-stateism there. If they're too stupid to understand it, then they shouldn't use it, like cars or kitchen knives or matches. It's not the state's job to ruin things because some people are too stupid to use them properly.

2024-06-14 17:09:37

- reply

See, I disagree with that. The negligence is in the user treating an entertainment system like a fact machine. It's every bit as negligent as only getting your news from a comedy program, or consulting Reddit for legal advice.

2024-06-14 17:03:05

- reply

So long as the provider has a "this might be bullshit" disclaimer, they're not dishing out "facts", so the user is responsible for improperly treating it as such.

2024-06-14 16:52:53

- reply

Yeah, I think the search companies putting AI responses as fact at the top of results, especially when the user has not opted in nor acknowledged the danger, could be one of the cases where a company has chosen to use the bot's speech as its own and therefore becomes liable for it.
But, again, I draw the distinction between that conduct and a chatbot with a disclaimer.

2024-06-14 16:41:55

- reply

They're there as much for the lawyers as for the users. Just like "don't eat poison" labels.
And, yeah, I think there's nuance there. When a company decides to use a chatbot as customer service, to speak on their behalf, then it absolutely should be liable for the results.
But that's a far cry from a generalized chatbot with a "don't believe my bullshit" disclaimer that can be easily-manipulated by the user.

2024-06-14 16:34:04

- reply

So you believe that the core issue here is that user-prompted content is first-party speech, not third-party speech? Even though the user can ask the system to repeat them verbatim (as I demonstrated above)?

2024-06-14 16:33:02

- reply

The person who asked is responsible. They used the system, after being warned about its inaccuracy multiple times during the onboarding process and *underneath every prompt* (see image), and then chose to use this potentially faulty information in a life-or-death situation.
I'm a pilot. If I choose to get my weather information from Chat GPT and end up crashing as a result, that's my own damn fault.
https://media.social.qoto.org/media_attachments/files/112/615/931/512/684/051/original/80660bceeb405a68.png

2024-06-14 16:18:42

- reply

Tbf, I've used some excel spreadsheets that were pretty "black box" too.
But more importantly, the transparency of an algorithm has no bearing on the liability for speech resulting from its use. Nearly every video game is a black box. Should the publishers therefore become liable for user content (like online voice chat) as a result?

2024-06-14 16:09:22

- reply

Yeah, and a law should be passed making Microsoft fully responsible for any and all content created with Microsoft Excel. Period. No exceptions.

2024-06-13 16:56:34

- reply

If they manage to buy the gun despite being an addict? Yeah. Same as how you'll spend more time in jail if you T-bone another car while drunk than while sober.
I guess it does have some preventative effect though... in that it provides a small barrier at an FFL to allow a dealer to reject a customer with a history of drug abuse or who appears to be actively strung-out. And it also allows relatives of the person to report that they're addicted and own a gun to authorities *before* they cause harm.

2024-06-13 16:43:45

- reply

If you harm or murder someone while under the influence of drugs, then you're long past the point of just needing addiction treatment.
Criminal laws are about enforcing punishments for crime after it's been committed, not preventing or reducing crime. There are other programs for that.

2024-06-13 16:26:58

- reply

Right, it basically just provides an enforcement mechanism for after-the-fact, but it's a federal crime, so you still don't want to be charged with it.

2024-06-13 16:16:59

- reply

Not the way it's currently implemented. You have to self-report on the background check when you buy a gun. If you're actively addicted to a substance, you shouldn't be buying guns. If you own a gun already, then there's nothing preventing you from seeking help.

2024-06-12 05:09:43

- reply

...sure they would. Even us gun owners and 2A advocates recognize that a prohibition on selling guns to those who are addicted to crack is a good law to have.

2024-05-04 10:24:41

- reply

#ScreenshotSaturday
https://media.social.qoto.org/media_attachments/files/112/382/330/123/040/460/original/5abb5253d1045428.png

2024-04-18 15:04:27

- reply

Hello! I'm currently converting my Early Access game from Unity to Godot, and Linux support is planned for the next major beta release!
https://store.steampowered.com/app/923710/uFactory/