In the US, you cannot ban people from using an app on their personal phone in your community. This is just ignorant. I’m not an AI bro, but you can’t just have each community deciding on what constitutional rights they want to violate.
Maybe, but this isn’t discussing using an app on your phone. This is discussing an app using a service that is not on your phone. If you’re running a model locally then sure, they probably can’t do anything about that. If it’s a product being sold by a company then they can.
As an obvious example, they can ban you from using a child pornography app (regardless of if it’s local-only). I’m certain you agree that they’re allowed to do that, right? It’s obvious in that example. What’s the difference with AI if they ban that?
That would likely violate the first amendment. Many of the ways you use your phone are considered forms of speech/expression. Wholesale banning of sectors of these by a government is a legitimate violation of your rights.
In all seriousness, if someone wanted to sue that local government referring the first amendment, they would likely take the ban down.
That said, I don’t find any actual article from a reputable news outlet describing what actually happened and what is in the city council ordinance. Likely a brief unenforceable article, which, as such, has no bearing on anyone’s life.
A redditor mentioned they banned “self improving” ai, which, if true, would explain why it isn’t getting more coverage- this is a nothing burger.
A redditor mentioned they banned “self improving” ai, which, if true, would explain why it isn’t getting more coverage- this is a nothing burger.
The year is 2029, Meta’s GrokBots have taken over the world. They approach Bloomington Indiana, their next target. A kindly older gentleman approaches the army on the outskirts of town.
“Sorry boys, we banned self improving AI back in 2026, you are not allowed here.”
The robots nod and continue onward, parting around the outskirts of town like a river flowing around a rock.
The town is saved. It becomes the last bastion of humanity within 6 months.
The output technically belongs to the AI company, does the first amendment apply to non human entities? If it does I don’t think anyone should be supporting that application …
It’s a product. It can be banned. It’s dumb and shows a general lack of understanding by those in charge but I don’t see what this has to do with the first amendment or the constitution more broadly.
In the US, you cannot ban people from using an app on their personal phone in your community. This is just ignorant. I’m not an AI bro, but you can’t just have each community deciding on what constitutional rights they want to violate.
Constitutional rights are made up, the Supreme Court can interpret the Constitution however they want.
That’s how they’re forcing ID laws onto porn now. They make up some shit about “reasonableness” and your rights are gone.
Maybe, but this isn’t discussing using an app on your phone. This is discussing an app using a service that is not on your phone. If you’re running a model locally then sure, they probably can’t do anything about that. If it’s a product being sold by a company then they can.
As an obvious example, they can ban you from using a child pornography app (regardless of if it’s local-only). I’m certain you agree that they’re allowed to do that, right? It’s obvious in that example. What’s the difference with AI if they ban that?
Not sure freedom to use apps is included in the US Constitution …
That would likely violate the first amendment. Many of the ways you use your phone are considered forms of speech/expression. Wholesale banning of sectors of these by a government is a legitimate violation of your rights.
Fuck AI, tho.
Tell that to all the places that banned porn.
Originally porn was protected by the first amendment.
There’s a whole movie about this called the people versus Larry flynt that kind of explains why.
Well, you see, something something God.
My god can beat up your god. Their name is “God That Beats Up Other Gods.” Therefore you have to do what I say. I even got a note to that effect
Think of the children!
Religious Leader Zealots: “Yes, of course we are.”
AI is something that violates every posible law (moral and legal). It should be hard banned.
Yes. Every. Possible. Law.
AI raped my mom.
AI quartered troops in my home.
In all seriousness, if someone wanted to sue that local government referring the first amendment, they would likely take the ban down.
That said, I don’t find any actual article from a reputable news outlet describing what actually happened and what is in the city council ordinance. Likely a brief unenforceable article, which, as such, has no bearing on anyone’s life.
A redditor mentioned they banned “self improving” ai, which, if true, would explain why it isn’t getting more coverage- this is a nothing burger.
The year is 2029, Meta’s GrokBots have taken over the world. They approach Bloomington Indiana, their next target. A kindly older gentleman approaches the army on the outskirts of town.
“Sorry boys, we banned self improving AI back in 2026, you are not allowed here.”
The robots nod and continue onward, parting around the outskirts of town like a river flowing around a rock.
The town is saved. It becomes the last bastion of humanity within 6 months.
a big sign outside town says
: ;; / | / | .' : .-' ' _.-' / .-*" / _ .-' .' _.-*?' .' .' .-" .' __ .' , .-' .-+. .' _.-*".' / \ .-' _.--**""**-. .-' _.y-:-" .' : `+. .*""*. `. :-. -. \ .' ; .--*""*--. / __ ` _.--. \ |$| -.` -.;/ _.-+. : .' :*" "*..*" y`-' $| ;*" _( \ / +----/ / .'.-'---+ .-._.+' `. -'_.--. :- "_( `*-: | \/\/\/ | /) ` .'___ ' "_( ; `._| robots.txt | \ )` .'.' `./_" ( : \| | (`._..--**" : .- ; `"' \ | | `----**"T"" " `+. | `. | Fuck off | ' .' : _.-*"*- | godsdamn | / / ' .-*" _ | toasters | __..-'\ / "+,'___..--| |--**"" `-.__.' "" +----------------+It’s basically just writing a letter with extra steps
The output technically belongs to the AI company, does the first amendment apply to non human entities? If it does I don’t think anyone should be supporting that application …
Banning it outright is ableist, there’s no need include the right to use certain apps in the Constitution.
There aren’t disabilities that require access to the plagiarism machine; it’s insulting to act like disabled people can’t write or make art.
there are few things ablebodied people find more offensive than a disabled person who can outperform them.
They’re only banning super intelligence. That doesn’t exist as a product.
Well didn’t trump rename AI into SI?
It’s a product. It can be banned. It’s dumb and shows a general lack of understanding by those in charge but I don’t see what this has to do with the first amendment or the constitution more broadly.
And a product that doesn’t exist!