#there's positives and negatives

[beardedmrbean]

Under the striking glass vaults of the Grand Palais in Paris, world leaders and tech titans gathered for a two-day summit dedicated to artificial intelligence. The heart of the event space, tucked in between the Seine and the iconic Champs-Élysées, was organised like an exhibition hall packed with dozens of stands showcasing the various ways AI can be used.

Climbing up the stairs in the building’s majestic nave, a display of flags decorated the railing, boasting the different nationalities taking part in the summit. At the top, a handful of key players gathered on Monday afternoon in the VIP lounge to discuss the impact AI could have on democracies.

But a few VIPs were missing. Representatives from some of the most influential companies in the sector including Open AI, Google and Microsoft played hooky.

Their absences were criticised by Meredith Whittaker, president of the end-to-end encrypted messaging app Signal who worked at Google for over a decade and helped organise mass walkouts, partly fuelled by the company’s handling of AI ethics, before resigning in July 2019.

“The large-scale approach to AI is damaging [societies],” she said.  

Security threats

“AI has profound consequences on our private lives,” Whittaker continued. To illustrate her point, Whittaker referred to the handful of telecoms companies in the US including Verizon and AT&T who fell victim to a sweeping Chinese-linked espionage operation known as Salt Typhoon in December last year. A vast amount of US users had their metadata taken as a result, and officials associated with both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump’s campaign ahead of the November presidential elections were targeted.

“From a security standpoint, what happened was a disaster. And it was made possible by backdoors [programmes that allow hackers to access a computer system or encrypted data remotely] being installed by authorities who were meant to be the only ones to access them,” the Signal president explained.

For Whittaker, AI was “born from the business model of surveillance”. And when it comes to hacking, “data can be used as a weapon” against US democracy.

The threat is undeniable for Latvian President Edgars Rinkevics, who shares Whittaker’s views. Rinkevics explained how, “due to the geopolitical and geographical situation” of his country, “Latvia has been exposed to cyber-attacks and disinformation campaigns” in recent years. With Russia as its neighbour, Latvia and the other Baltic countries Estonia and Lithuania bore the brunt of cyber-attacks in recent years. EU member states have repeatedly been the target of Russian cyber-attacks in 2024.

Before he went into detail about the specific threats Latvia faces, Rinkevics stressed that “the priority is to protect critical infrastructure and monitor the situation in the Baltic Sea", where several undersea telecoms, power and data cables were sabotaged in recent months.

“With regards to democracy, AI has been used to meddle in elections, especially in Romania,” Rinkevics added. “In Latvia, we passed a law that requires [all content created by] AI to be labelled” so that people can identify when it has been used. Rather than being wary of the technology, Rinkevics believes “we need more expertise to understand exactly where cyber-attacks come from and how to better protect our democracies".

In a leap of faith, Latvia signed an agreement with Microsoft in December last year to develop a National Center for Artificial Intelligence. Its aims include promoting AI and other digital solutions to modernise the country’s administrative processes.

Need for global AI safeguards

From eerily accurate deep-fakes to social media accounts usurped by scammers for money, artificial intelligence has many faces. And that is partly why it is such a threat to democracies. “AI can make it easier to carry out cyber-attacks, which have become more sophisticated now that tools generating complex code can be used to this end,” warned Marie-Laure Denis, President of the French Data Protection Authority (CNIL).

Denis believes that solutions to protect democracies should stem from a diverse range of safeguards, starting with the general data protection regulation (GDPR), implemented in the EU since 2018 that sets out guidelines on how to collect and process personal information from people both within and outside of the continent. “We should develop a trusted AI tool to strengthen the protection of our rights,” she added. “Without guarantees, we can’t have trust. And without trust, we can’t develop AI in the long-run.”

But when it comes to AI and democracy, not all countries feel equally included in the conversation on regulations. Pakistani lawyer and online rights activist Nighat Dad intervened to point out global disparities. “Are our exchanges at this roundtable democratic? Are we talking about the whole world or just the democracies of the Global North?” Dad asked. She founded the Digital Rights Foundation in 2012, an NGO focused on protecting human rights defenders in digital spaces. “Moving forward without diverse voices is unimaginable. All democracies must be able to express themselves.”

Mathias Cormann, secretary-general of the OECD, echoed Dad’s remarks when he spoke of the need for “more effective international cooperation on AI”.

“We need a generalised governance framework to help us develop safe AI,” he said. “But right now, we are a long way from that.”

“At this stage, we don’t know exactly where we’re headed when it comes to AI,” Latvian President Rinkevics concluded. “The priority for companies is to reap the benefits [of AI]. And the priority for countries is likely a little different. But in any case, we are a long way from having a global AI agreement.”

[anthropologist-on-the-loose]

I'm as grateful for cellphones as the next person, but sometimes I think about how everyone having a phone on them at all times really did cause us to loose some things as a society. I mean - for example, kids these days will never experience their car breaking down and needing to find the nearest place with a phone they can use. They're never going to have the opportunity to tentatively approach a house only to discover that it's full of queer people having a party hosted by a transvestite to celebrate his creation of a sex homunculus, stay the night, and loose their virginity while unintentionally partaking in cannibalism. It's tragic, that kind of gay sexual awakening just doesn't happen these days because of cellphones.

[capnsoapy]

Before being condescendingly transmisogynistic it's just worth taking a moment to consider why calling a cis woman "dude" has different connotations and implications to calling a trans woman "dude"?

[idontmindifuforgetme]

friend wanted to see my tumblr, and when i told him i can’t show it to him bc it’s basically my personal diary he went “oh so I can’t see it but a bunch of strangers on tumblr can??” he literally does not get me. no one will get me like the people in my phone get me

[afloweroutofstone]

It is interesting that the American people seem to disagree strongly with Donald Trump on most cultural issues (transgender issues, abortion, race relations, and LGBTQ issues) and yet his single strongest issue approval is on immigration. The median voter seems to want xenophobic wokeness

[helpful-writing-tips]

if you write a strong character, let them fail.

if you write a selfless hero, let them get mad at people.

if you write a cold-hearted villain, make them cry.

if you write a brokenhearted victim, let them smile again.

if you write a bold leader, make them seek guidance.

if you write a confident genius, make them be wrong, or get stumped once in a while.

if you write a fighter or a warrior, let them lose a battle, but let them win the war.

if you write a character who loses everything, let them find something.

if you write a reluctant hero, give them a reason to fight.

credit:@aj-eddy

[hiruko-shizuhara]

Hiruko Shizuhara the Greatest

[its-ate-oclock-somewhere]

absolutely wild that Bryan Fuller did this on national television

[aro-bird]

Here's me begging people again to learn the difference because I've been seeing more and more people confuse these terms when discussing some things in the ace community:

Sex-Favorable - A descriptor that refers to a person's personal feelings about engaging in the act of sex that specifically refers to them being fine and even enthusiastic in engaging in sex and other sexual acts. Often confused by some as Sex-Positivity.

Sex-Positive - A moral or political position that refers to a positive outlook on sex as something positive and something that should not be shamed for any consenting persons regardless of their own personal feelings towards sexual acts on themselves.

Sex-Indifferent - A descriptor that refers to a person's personal feelings about engaging in the act of sex that specifically refers to them being indifferent in engaging in sex and other sexual acts.

Sex-Neutral - A moral or political position that refers to an indifferent outlook on sex. They may not have strong feelings about it one way or another.

Sex-Averse - A descriptor that refers to a person's personal feelings about engaging in the act of sex that specifically refers to them being averse in engaging in sex and other sexual acts. Often confused by some as sex-repulsion.

Sex-Repulsed - A descriptor that refers to a person's personal feelings about engaging in the act of sex that specifically refers to them being repulsed or disgusted by thoughts or material related to sex. This has no bearing on their own political/moral position on sex. Often confused by some as Sex-Aversion or even Sex-Negativity.

Sex-Negative - A moral or political position that refers to a negative view on sex as something negative and something that should be forbidden and only be a means of procreation. Some people who are sex-negative may only view it as a way to procreate so people who engage in the activity without any plans of procreation (and especially members of the queer community) may be deemed as immoral or even evil.

If we're going to have proper discussions of these things, please please please can we use the proper terms. I need to stop feeling fight or flight whenever I see someone trying to vent about "some rude sex-positive aces" or see someone proclaim that they're "sex-negative" like I'm serious. I keep on having to double-take whenever I have to read posts and discussions because of this.

[scribefindegil]

I love first-person because it’s about what the narrator chooses to tell. What do they focus on? What do they leave out? What can you learn from reading between the lines? Are they lying to you? Are they lying to themself? It’s great for unreliable narrators and for epistolary storytelling! It’s intimate but there’s still a distance because you aren’t really seeing the narrator’s thoughts--you’re just seeing the story that they’ve constructed.

I love second-person because it’s a conversation. Does “you” mean a broad, indefinite “you”? Does “you” really mean “I” but with plausible deniability? Does “you” mean one specific person? Can they hear the narrator? Do they know the narrator? What is the relationship here? Who’s talking? Who’s listening?

I love third-person limited because it’s focused and intimate. What does the world look like from inside this character’s head? What are they seeing? What are they feeling? It doesn’t grant them the privacy that first-person does; the narrative isn’t something they’ve chosen, it’s invisible and inescapable. As a reader you’re not watching so much as astral projecting.

(I love singular point of view because of how much it leans into that limitation. You’re not getting the whole story; you’re not seeing anything unless this character sees it. How do you embrace that? What do you do with the gaps around the edges? How does that define--or warp--the events that they’re experiencing?

I love multiple points of view because of how it broadens your understanding of the story and the world. If two point-of-view characters react in opposite ways to the same thing, what does that tell you about them? About the world? How does it feel to spend time inside a character’s head and then see them from someone’s else’s point of view? How do all of these viewpoints work together?) 

I love third-person omniscient because the narrative is a character. It’s great for stories that know they’re stories! It allows for a camaraderie between the narrator and the reader! It allows for wider and more cinematic descriptions because you’re not limited to what a specific person can see! It lets you look at the characters from outside while still giving you the option to delve into their heads because you have full control over what you’re focusing on!

And I love authors who can combine viewpoints in ways you wouldn’t think would work but manage to pull it off! Stories with multiple point-of-view characters where one is first-person and the others are third! Stories that combine first- and second-person! Stories where the omniscient narrator suddenly refers to themself in the first person! Stories where you realize halfway through that you were wrong about who was narrating it!

Isn’t it fantastic that there are so many different ways to tell stories!!!!

[hey-hey-j]

this started as me just wanting to do a side-by-side of her two holiday outfits and it quickly spiraled from there lol

(★ my Kofi)

[throesofincreasingwonder]

You know what? I want a whole post for this:

Sex Repulsion is not the same thing as, or an excuse for, Sex Negativity

non-negotiable!

I am a sex-repulsed asexual. This means that I am uncomfortable and repulsed by the idea of engaging in sexual acts. This does not mean that I have an excuse to be repulsed by other people's sexual attraction or the right to police how other people engage in or express sexual acts or attraction.

Young queer people need to learn the difference between sex repulsion and sex negativity, and actively work to unlearn sex-negative attitudes. Asexuality, even sex-repulsed asexuality, is and should be fully compatible with sex positivity.

If you are uncomfortable with the idea of other people feeling sexual attraction or engaging in sexual acts that do not involve you in any way, that is not sex repulsion it is the cultural Christianity and you need to seriously work on that.

[389]

Johfra Bosschart Gemini

[icanlife]

Very tired of people who continue to argue that Bill destroying Euclydia was completely on purpose and he didn’t care about anyone at all because he’s just trying to garner sympathy in The Book of Bill, despite all the supporting evidence outside of Bill’s words that allude to how deeply traumatic it was, (so many, many things about) how he loved and misses his parents, how much of a sore spot the topic is for him, how much he wants to return home but can’t, etc. in addition to how perfectly Alex and co. crafted a parallel narrative between Bill and Ford, including how they hurt the people they love out of carelessness and blind pursuit of their dreams, justifying to themselves that the people they hurt just couldn’t understand

Yes, Bill is an unreliable narrator, and that includes all the very obvious posturing that he did it all on purpose and it was actually a very good thing, that everyone loved him, that he’s NOT incarcerated or anything and that he’s still a really all-powerful being, etc etc etc. To fully believe that EVERY vulnerability he reveals is an evil manipulation tactic, and not actual character writing, you have to interpret his very prevalent denial of weakness, which continues into the conclusion of the book where he already knows he’s lost the reader and is still denying any emotional needs or trauma, as itself a lie.

There’s a reason why the Pines family cracked open this book and laughed at Bill, calling him a fractured, pathetic mess.

The Book of Bill has a plot, a great plot, and great character writing. It’s a crazy companion to Journal 3, Ford’s story. Parallel stories, but where one ends with someone healing from their trauma, coming to terms with one’s mistakes and accepting the need for human love and relationships, the other ends with one stuck forever in their layers and layers of denial, never acknowledging their own trauma, never acknowledging their need for human companionship, grasping in desperate need at their continued facade of hating to love and loving to hurt.

Bill isn’t an always-in-control sly master of the mind, he’s a delusional and desperate man, fractured by his own trauma, who will continue to hurt others to prove that he’s in control. I’m tired of the false narrative that abusers can’t have trauma, aren’t people, giving them this otherworldly status above all humanity. Aside from not being narratively or societally productive, it undermines the ending and message of the book. Acknowledging Bill’s brokenness gives his victims POWER over him. The fact that Bill needs Ford, but Ford doesn’t need Bill is powerful. Them laughing at his desperation is powerful. Looking at someone who once seemed untouchable to you and realizing they’re just a suffering meat sack like any other human being is powerful.

The ending of The Book of Bill is the demystification of Bill. The book is a real look into his mind, telling a story that’s actually very tragic. It’s a very real story, a cautionary tale. You’re not being manipulated or tricked if you feel bad, it’s a very intentional writing decision that this ending elicits that dark pity, as he desperately fades away (arts and crafts materials confiscated) saying that he’s FINE.

So yeah, The Book of Bill and the website are a masterwork of the character, I love them, they’re incredible, and I don’t want to see such a tight character story discredited as “you can’t believe ANY of it!”

[pangur-and-grim]

also some good blood news! I’ve been needing transfers every few months, but since I stopped eating gluten, my irons levels not only stayed level, but have GONE UP! for the first time in years!

so it was definitely damaging my digestive track. I’m suspicious that it also stopped me from properly absorbing calcium - it seemed so weird that my leg shattered from such a minor fall.