ノಠ_ಠノ

20+ he/hm

[cardinalvirtue]

this has been my worst nightmare for years this is gta6’s fault omg someone DO SOMETHING

[seabassapologist]

[bigbigbigtruck]

i’ll be real, kitten, daddy needs multiple wealthy and powerful folks to die in a painful, drawn-out, and generationally humiliating manner

[nariiminus]

[titleknown]

Trump Moves to Deeply Censor the Entire Internet

The Trump administration is cynically exploiting calls for stricter AI regulation to pass broad censorship measures at the federal level.

So, in terrible news, Trump's trying to pull some strings to pass this massive internet censorship bill, featuring all the kinds of internet censorship we're terrified of, including mandatory ID for accessing basically any website, specifically to crush state regulation of AI, because apparently this man will always see the moral bottom of the barrel and start digging.

So, if you live in the US and hate censorship and AI you know what to do, contact your congresspeople and tell them do not fucking dare let this through or so help us god...

[angelicguy]

me and the boys have a couple of chains wrapped around the sword in the stone hooked up to mikes toyota tundra gonna pull that fucker out like a tooth.

[seaweed-station]

Me and the boys misunderstood the arcane nature of the stone and now the Toyota is king of England

[sailorbrazil]

thursday..... and i bet you wish you were her

[redstonedust]

gay sex walkthrough 100% all secrets & bonus levels no commentary

[simkaye]

Thinking about the Big Hamster project I scrapped

[couldntbedamned]

If you come across anyone who starts off with "Scientists don't want you to know..." you need to understand that they're lying. They're completely full of shit and working a grift.

Because they've never met or spoke with a scientist.

Scientists WANT YOU TO KNOW. Scientists want you to know SO MUCH. Scientists would be THRILLED to teach you EVERYTHING they know in EXPLICIT DETAIL. Scientists LOVE to share information and their findings and their theories. They don't want to hide anything, ever. They are SO HAPPY to share.

[eusexuanal]

Settles down on your dashboard gingerly and with a big heaving sigh

[analytically]

Can astrologers use astrological charts to understand people's character and lives? Our new study put astrologers to the test

Astrology is very popular — both Gallup and YouGov report that about 25% of Americans believe that the position of the stars and planets can

Astrology doesn't seem to work.

[intimate-mirror]

[performativezippers]

Some highlights:

Astrologers helped design the study

No one did better than random chance, even though they only included people in the study who are experienced with astrology and stated that they expect themselves to do better than random chance

They gave every astrologer a set of 50 things about a person and 5 birth charts to choose from. They weren’t even coming up with the chart themselves!

After taking the test, most thought they nailed it. Zero out of 152 did better than 5 out of 12. None nailed it

Astrologers who rated themselves highly experienced (“world class experts”) did the same or worse as those who said they have limited experience. Both performed the same as random chance

This is hilarious

[o-craven-canto]

That's got to be the funniest graph ever published in a paper

[taniesart]

team 7 <3

[luciacaminoz]

my relationship with dragon age as a series is so twisted it’s like my ex-husband i divorced in the messiest way possible but i still have feelings for him nobody knows me like he does and we have occasional passionate love affairs still but also i daydream about killing him in his sleep quite often

[luciacaminoz]

hes lying next to me in bed my hands are shaking closing around his throat i cant see through the tears

[enki2]

[thebdelliumlady]

For anyone wondering, the PhD student's name is Myra Cheng.

Here's a link to an article about the study from the Stanford Report: link.

[chapscher]

Across three preregistered studies, participants interacting with sycophantic AI became more convinced of their own rightness and less willing to repair relationships. Yet at the same time, participants rated sycophantic AI models as higher quality, more trustworthy, and more desirable for future use, which may explain why this behavior has persisted despite its harmful impacts.

Myra Cheng et al. "Sycophantic AI decreases prosocial intentions and promotes dependence." Science 391, eaec8352 (2026).

[gaykomaegi]

absolutely love this shot where rose is watching her home planet die off after five billion years and the doctor is just slaying off in the corner

[crystal-mouse]

Same image

[bushoutforbela]

Is this anything

[eebie]

I just ate one

[eebie]

You can lie when you name things

[sztupy]

Landmark German ruling declares Google's AI Overviews are Google's own words and makes it liable for false answers

A German regional court has ruled that Google is directly liable for the content of its AI search overviews. According to the court, previou

[ayeforscotland]

Let’s fucking go

[made-in-manetheren]

This is HUGE.

1. The court holds Google responsible for statements made by its AI, considering them Google's statements (search engines have limited liability for results in their engine as they're the words of other sites/companies/people), meaning when their AI lies/hallucinates they're liable for the defamation/harm resulting from those statements.

2. Google's defense that customers are generally aware of the lack of reliability and are responsible for fact checking was dismissed. As the court pointed out, that would "significantly diminish" AI Search's stated purpose and it can't be distinguished from Google's business practices/statements as a search tool.

3. Studies have found about 91% of Google's everyday AI responses are accurate, leaving millions of searches per HOUR with potential liability for falsehoods. 56% of correct responses weren't supported by the sources the AI listed. Both of which mean Google is now liable for a LOT more AI "errors."

4. Google was held liable for 80% of court costs in this case and this precedent is expected to reverberate around the world. This is a massive shift from the 3rd-party search provider role Google has previously played and it comes right as they've tied ALL searches to their AI search.

TL;DR Google reeeeeally stepped in it this time.

[alianoralacanta]

5. If the words are Google's, this solidifies the position of universities who demand that all answers from AI are fully cited. If all the in-line citations now have to be (Google, 2026), that's going to make it obvious when someone's trying to use Google as a source. There's still the difficulty with people who are academically dishonest by trying to pass off the AI writing as their own. 6. 91% accuracy is officially too low to use as a source of references, which means the AI can't be used as a source of references either. This makes it less legitimate for such purposes than Wikipedia of all places (Wikipedia might need date/time proof of when it was accessed for the reference to be valid, but at least it is possible to prove the link existed at a particular date and time). 7. This will help encourage the rollout of courses on how to avoid AI search for students who need academic accuracy, because it's statistically not good enough to use. 8. This strengthens the case intellectual property authors have against Google in the EU, as this is proof that an intellectual property transfer took place.