CanIFishHere

To be honest, I didn’t care enough to do any additional research, much like yourself.

Google handles over 90% of all worldwide web searches. Bing is in second with 5% and DuckDuckGo at under 1%. Statcounter 2026 numbers.

My Google search still offers up an ‘AI mode’ button.

The story says active users.

If it’s a Taiwanese publication, then it must be true.

If you don’t recognize advances in research as a benefit, I’m done. Thanks.

You think AI isn’t being used for medical research?

www.cancer.gov/…/artificial-intelligence

The story itself is pretty ridiculous. He starts with a conclusion, and then looks for stories to support that narrative. What should happen, is first establish criteria to measure if an AI project has been successful or not and then measure projects against that criteria. Instead the author uses anecdotal stories of projects he has heard failed, so it must all be wrong.

Not one mention of the advances in medical research using AI, because it goes against his narrative.

You have the upcoming elections to make a difference. Hopefully the Democrats don’t shoot themselves in the foot.

I completely agree there are abuses. But outlawing the technology doesn’t change the mindset of law enforcement. In my opinion, we put pressure on lawmakers to make it criminal to abuse this power. We still protect the vulnerable, and our privacy is protected.

Considering its AI reviewing the texts and not humans, general privacy isn’t compromised. Again, let’s deal with the real issue which is abuse of power.

That’s a stretch. Your conjecture isn’t supported by the facts of this story whatsoever.

You are describing a policy failing, not technology. I think we can both agree the policy side of things is sorely lacking. Circumstances where people are detained because of AI reporting without ever looking at the evidence themselves just shouldn’t happen.

Try the hyperbole 'Is there a bomb in my suitcase? What do you think, I would put it in a checked bag?" I’m sure the hilarity will be overwhelming.

I’m fine with monitoring Snapchat and actioning death threats. Not sure if you caught this part, but its AI that monitors looking for death threats, not humans.

Thanks!

I can relate to that. But that is very different than sharing you want to shoot an unrelated (biological) student or the school.

Would you prefer if all serious threats on social media were ignored?

Saying you want to shoot students or the school should not be ignored. If you were the parent of the student, would your preferred course of action is do nothing?

I thought those numbers looked fishy, now we know why. Actually, the numbers themselves aren’t fishy, the fishy part is misinterpreting them.

Is there a reliable site that does report user installations of OS’s?

She said she was going to shoot the student and/or the school. Snapchat did the right thing. She is not the victim here.

Cars get repod if you don’t pay. It would definitely fly.

Story has already changed. Originally it was him giving border agents the kill code which they entered.

That’s why I said (could be wrong) in brackets.

This guy is in a heap of trouble. He should have consulted a lawyer way before encountering border officials so he knew his rights and the law.