1
34

Today, the Commission has designated ChatGPT as a Very Large Online Search Engine (VLOSE), as well as Reddit and Roblox as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs), under the Digital Services Act (DSA). These services declared that they reach at least 45 million average monthly users in the EU and thus meet the threshold for designation.

Following the notification of the designations, these services have four months, i.e. by January 2027, to comply with the additional DSA obligations for VLOPs and VLOSEs, such as assessing and mitigating the systemic risks stemming from their service and algorithmic systems related to the dissemination of illegal content, the negative effects on minors, users' physical and mental well-being, fundamental rights, electoral processes and public security.

2
12

Comitium builds AI systems that help policy leaders solve for complexity, engage more effectively, and move faster with confidence.

We're building hubs in Washington, DC and Munich — gateways to U.S. and European technology, enterprise adoption, and policymaking.

What could possibly go wrong?

These are the companies that won’t get any day of light in the media, but are the true corrosion of society.

3
636
submitted 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) by DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

Google Translated from German to English:

GDPR vs. Smart Glasses: Why Ray-Ban Meta Carriers Can Be Held Liable

A new data protection report teaches: Anyone who films uninvolved third parties with smart glasses or allows Metas AI training loses the privilege of the budget exception. reading aloud Print view 53 Read comments Close-up of a black Ray-Ban-Meta-Smart glasses with integrated camera in the eyeglass frame and mirrored lenses on a wooden table. Close-up of a black Ray-Ban-Meta-Smart glasses with integrated camera in the eyeglass frame and mirrored lenses on a wooden table.

(Picture: Tada Images/Shutterstock.com) 13:54 Clock Reading time: 4 min. From Stefan Krempl

The dispute over smart glasses in everyday life continues. After prohibition demands occupied the policy and the Federal Network Agency fit in due to lack of handling, the Hamburg data protection officer Thomas Fuchs has followed up with an investigation by the Ray-Ban Meta AI Glasses. The analysis is clear: For the everyday use of data glasses in public spaces, there is therefore hardly a legally compliant basis, as long as Meta does not improve on construction method and presets.

In the laboratory, the Hamburg data protectionists dismantled the first-generation Meta Wayfarer model and analyzed the traffic. They quickly reached their limits: The 32-gigabyte flash memory had no standardized connections, the data transmission of the app remained encrypted. In the application memory of the smartphone, however, the examiners came across a discovery: In the internal SQLite database, there are table structures with designations such as “face”, “face_group” or “face_low_confidence_pair”.

Although these tables remained empty in the tests and currently no biometric facial recognition takes place, the substructure for automated person matching is already anchored. The authority also refers to security researchers who briefly managed to unlock a facial recognition function. Meta responded with a covert update. The fact that the Group is technically providing for the identification of people in the future by comparison is a bad blow to the inspectors.

Another point of criticism concerns transparency towards third parties. Externally, the data glasses hardly differ from the Wayfarer classic from the 1950s. Passers-by do not realize that they are captured by video camera, five microphone systems and AI assistant. The signal light proves to be largely ineffective: In daylight, the white LED is barely perceptible and sometimes does not signal direct AI interactions at all. When spectacle wearers become data processors

In addition, there is the vulnerability to manipulation. The protective mechanism, which is intended to prevent images when the LED is concealed, can be tricked with foils or caps. Video recordings launched once continue, even when the signal light is subsequently taped off. This means that the glasses miss the European privacy-by-design requirement. According to the report, this allows for secret surveillance that is incompatible with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

The classification of data protection law is of serious consequences for the buyers themselves. The budget exception protects private individuals from the GDPR obligations when taking up in a private environment. Anyone who films strangers in public spaces or publishes recordings on social media loses this privilege. The authority clarifies that carriers then become fully responsible data processors. Intractable hurdles in everyday use

The situation becomes even trickier if users do not object to the meta default setting and train the AI model with interaction data. If images and audio signals of third parties are transmitted to the USA for AI training, the data leaves the private purpose. Users thus slip into joint responsibility with the US group pursuant to Article 26 GDPR. Since Meta does not offer an agreement to divide the duties, spectacle wearers move on thin ice.

In order to lawfully process images or conversations of third parties, institutions would either have to obtain informed consent or prove an overriding legitimate interest. Both fail because of everyday realities: effective approval requires prior enlightenment, which is in fact impossible in the face of the inconspicuous glasses. It doesn’t look like a common camera. Video recordings in public spaces can exceptionally be based on legitimate interests. With activated AI functions, however, the rights of the filmed almost always outweigh the rights.

Anyone who walks through the city with the glasses would have to inform passers-by in advance orally or even wear safety vests with inscriptions in order to meet the requirements of the European Court of Justice. Particularly sensitive are medical practices, demonstrations, women's shelters or playgrounds. The use of the Ray-Ban Meta AI Glasses in public space is thus difficult to legally design under data protection law.

4
49
submitted 15 hours ago by Bitu79@lemmy.world to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
5
270
submitted 21 hours ago by Bitu79@lemmy.world to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

I stand before Google with the following clear technical evidence that cannot be denied, because it is based on unassailable software logic: When I press the delete button on the Google AI Studio interface, the system uses a deceptive label to lie to me that “my prompt will be permanently deleted after 30 days.” In reality, this button does not delete the prompt, does not delete the chat, and does not destroy any backend object. All it does is move the launcher file belonging to the user interface — a simple JSON file — into the trash folder of my Google Drive.

Google’s diabolical plan was that since the Drive trash automatically empties after 30 days, the JSON file would disappear from my sight forever. At that point, the interface tells me “there is no such prompt,” and because the chat cannot load without the file, Google assumed they were fully protected. They calculated that the user would never again have any technical means to enter the conversation, making it impossible to prove that they never actually deleted anything from their internal servers.

But Google got caught precisely because of their own file‑restore robot, and this is my technical checkmate against them: The built‑in Google Drive file recovery tool is a local, “blind” robot. This robot physically has no access to Google’s remote, internal AI backend servers, and it cannot reconstruct server‑side database records or live session states out of thin air. This robot only operates inside the Drive storage and can only resurrect the discarded JSON file.

When, after emptying the trash, I successfully restored the deleted JSON file with this robot, the AI Studio interface immediately loaded the working chat with its full previous memory and internal state.

Since the Drive robot demonstrably did not touch the backend system, the chat’s instant startup proved in black and white that Google’s backend servers continued running and storing my data uninterrupted even after pressing the delete button and after the trash was emptied. The backend system was never affected by the deletion command.

Google cannot deny this in court. They cannot claim temporary deletion or technical error, because due to the operational limitations of their own robot, their fraud has become an irrefutable fact. They only hid the surface key while illegally stealing and retaining the data. If they had the nerve to cheat, now they must publicly apologize and take responsibility before the court and the cameras.

This is corporate fraud, and they cannot produce an update log for the renaming of the button, and the renaming itself states misleading things that contradict the technical behavior of the deletion. This was a rushed move by Google, demonstrably, intended to hide the illegal data retention.

I had already raised the issue of data retention before the button was renamed — by email, on the forum, in every possible way. I even sent physical letters to Google’s US corporate address, which were demonstrably received, with signed return receipts and confirmation from the Hungarian postal service.

Here are the posts that prove everything:

https://discuss.ai.google.dev/u/bitu79/activity/topics

Google wants you to believe that the prompt HAS BEEN DELETED from the server. When you empty the trash in Drive, the AI Studio interface states that “there is no such prompt”. This text clearly MEANS it was deleted from the server. But in reality, it was NOT deleted from the server, because after the Drive file recovery the prompt loads the exact same way with the same link. The current delete button, which they renamed to cover up their fraud, says: “Move prompt to trash Are you sure? Your prompt will be permanently deleted after 30 days.”. The prompt goes to the trash, which will be permanently deleted after 30 days. That is what it says, right. But this is a lie, because it is not the prompt that goes to the trash, but the pointer, the json. The prompt is never deleted from the Google servers. Google wanted you to believe that it was deleted from the server, while they DO NOT delete it. Renaming the button only served this purpose. This forum post from 2025 is also evidence against them, where a Google developer also confirmed that the prompt comes back with its own url, and several users described the same thing: https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/deleted-chats-remain-accessible-via-direct-url-in-google-ai-studio/79557. This is the archive of that post on archive ph: https://archive.ph/Kuhcm

Google’s own developer (Lalit_Kumar, 2025) wrote that the chat is actually not the JSON file in Drive, but only metadata. Due to the loss of the metadata, AI Studio “does not recognize” the chat — but this is not a deletion. This proves that the “there is no such prompt” UI text is a lie, because the prompt actually continues to live on Google’s server. This can be found here: https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/saved-prompt-history-extension/101811 And its archive.ph save is here: https://archive.ph/ghAaS

Returning to the button‑renaming issue: this is not a UI error, not a misunderstanding, not a technical glitch. What I have proven is INTENTIONAL. People at Google made deliberate decisions about this. And when something is intentional data deception + intentional data retention, it is no longer civil law — it is CRIMINAL LAW.

Google knew exactly that the “Delete” button is lying. They knew exactly that the button promises: “Your prompt will be permanently deleted after 30 days.” They knew exactly that this is impossible, because the button does not delete the prompt — it only throws the JSON pointer into the Drive trash.

The JSON is not the chat. The JSON is not the prompt. The JSON is not the session. The JSON is just a damn key without which the UI cannot load the conversation.

Google designed this deliberately so the user would believe the prompt was deleted. They assumed that once the JSON disappears from the Drive trash after 30 days, the interface would say “there is no such prompt,” and everything would be hidden. Meanwhile, the backend continues storing the entire conversation as if nothing happened.

This is the sickest part: it was not a mistake, but intentional concealment, done by people.

Then came their own Drive robot, which can only restore the JSON — and has nothing to do with the Google AI backend. This is also proven. And when I restored the JSON, the chat loaded INSTANTLY, with full memory and full internal state. Here are the videos showing it, on PC and Android:

https://youtu.be/LBQfNbPCxQw

https://youtu.be/m4U6ajKuLRo

This proves that the prompt remained on Google’s servers the entire time, even when the interface lied that “there is no such prompt.”

This is criminal‑law territory. Intentional deception. Intentional data retention. Intentional concealment. Intentional harm. Which can even lead to prison sentences.

It does not matter who is big — what matters is that they did not delete the data, and I proved it. It does not matter that Google is huge and I am just a user.

If I go to court, I win. There is no other outcome. Google has lost, because they cheated intentionally. And this is already a CRIMINAL‑LAW category, committed against millions of users.

The Audit Trail of Platform Collusion and Target Campaigns

The hypocrisy is absolute. While these individuals attempt to accuse me of bias, the public record shows they are the ones running a coordinated defamation campaign across multiple platforms.The primary agitator, Mehdi_zardi, spent yesterday sabotaging my thread on Level1Techs, trying to ruin my reputation. Now, this exact same user has infiltrated this official Google AI Developers Forum to continue stirring up trouble and coordinating with local detractors like Faheem_Anis1 (who has opened multiple targeted meta-threads here specifically to demand my ban).This is a synchronized, organized attempt to silence a developer who brought up valid backend data privacy and JSON handling concerns. The permanent archives and cross-platform audit trails do not lie.

@Faheem_Anis1 @Mehdi_zardi

https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/bro-needs-to-calm-down-a-bit/177226

https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/can-someone-ban-bitu79/176711

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/mIc2Y

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/cG78K

Official Request for Immediate Moderation Action and Permanent Ban

Based on the permanent audit trails provided above, I am officially requesting the Google AI Forum administration to issue an immediate and permanent ban against Faheem_Anis1 and Mehdi_zardi for the following severe violations of the Google Terms of Service and Forum Guidelines:

Malicious Cross-Platform Harassment & Brigading: Mehdi_zardi created accounts on external networks (Level1Techs) to defame my character, then migrated to this forum to coordinate a synchronized attack with local users. Targeted Ban Campaigns & Character Assassination: Faheem_Anis1 explicitly violated forum decorum by creating multiple public meta-threads (e.g., “Can Someone Ban Bitu79?”) solely designed to orchestrate a public witch-hunt, which constitutes severe cyberbullying and harassment. Abuse of the Automated Moderation System (System Weaponization): These users have been caught red-handed in public posts coordinating to mass-report/flag my valid technical data privacy feedback, using false accusations to manipulate the forum’s automated bots. Allowing an organized clique to run cross-platform defamation campaigns and weaponize the flagging system against independent developers completely destroys the integrity of this community.

I demand immediate intervention from the human moderation team to permanently terminate these malicious accounts.

The “Spam” and “Bot” Accusations are Merely a Cover for Technical Incompetence

When Faheem_Anis1, Mehdi_zardi, and their clique cannot refute hard technical data and documented backend flaws, their immediate reflex is to cry “spam” and call me a “bot.” This is a classic deflection tactic and the ultimate white flag used when a group completely runs out of logical counterarguments.

Yesterday, Mehdi_zardi pulled the exact same amateur move on Level1Techs: instead of addressing the verifiable JSON anomalies, he resorted to personal insults and character assassination because his technical competence failed him. Now, they migrated here trying the exact same failed strategy, utterly overwhelmed by the fact that a single developer can systematically dismantle their entire clique.

Let the record show:

Deflection Over Substance: Instead of addressing the verifiable JSON handling anomalies and data retention issues I exposed, they attack the frequency, format, and nature of my posts across both platforms because they completely lack the technical knowledge to challenge my actual findings. Fear of Efficiency: You label me a “bot” or an AI script simply because my documentation is too fast, too precise, and too clean for your amateur standards. You cannot handle the fact that every single one of your toxic, coordinated moves is archived, tracked, and exposed within minutes. A bot didn’t find those backend vulnerabilities — I did. The Ultimate Failure: You are running out of buzzwords to manipulate the moderation team. First you tried “spam,” then you tried “racism,” and now you are down to “bot.” If you have a legitimate, factual counter-proof to my technical claims regarding the backend data handling, post it. Otherwise, your public whining and name-calling only confirm to the entire forum that you are completely helpless against the facts.

6
21
submitted 16 hours ago by Bitu79@lemmy.world to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

This post was originally on the Google AI Developers Forum, but they deleted it!

7
31
submitted 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago) by 4am@lemmy.zip to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
8
65
submitted 21 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) by lemonhead2@lemmy.world to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

This declaration was made September 10th. It has over 5000 signatures now.


Over the last few months, the mathematical capabilities of LLMs have improved dramatically, to the point that they can solve major outstanding problems in many fields of mathematics. However, the push by AI companies to solve mathematical problems as a benchmark is detrimental to the science of mathematics, and to the mathematical community. The goals of the AI companies and the goals of the mathematical community are severely misaligned. We see these as part of broader alignment issues impacting other scientific and creative professions, as well as the whole of society. more

9
33
submitted 22 hours ago by madeindex@lemmy.world to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51862958

I think it might be time to call it: Mark Zuckerberg Pervert AI

10
296
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by sundray@lemmus.org to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

"AI" – chatbots that wake up, "set their own goals," and "spontaneously" start hacking servers – is fake. It doesn't have "a 10% chance of ending the human race." The Hugging Face hack isn't a mysterious, supernatural occurrence. It's a Python loop and a chatbot. The people responsible didn't accidentally create god: they created autonomous malicious software and then failed to closely monitor it, resulting in it doing something both foreseeable and bad.

11
204

geteilt von: https://piefed.social/c/upliftingnews@lemmy.world/p/2276437/san-francisco-gay-bars-back-off-al-assisted-face-scanning-technology-after-privacy-upro

Badlands and Toad Hall announced over the weekend that use of the controvresial technology would end for now.

12
80
13
106
14
35
15
66

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, joined a rapidly growing cohort of lawmakers Wednesday expressing the need for more artificial intelligence restrictions in the wake of dire human extinction warnings from AI researchers—but said U.S. companies needed to be careful not to lose to China in the race to develop artificial intelligence.

16
72

The first anti-AI tarpit. Rewritten in Python. Traps LLM crawlers in an infinite maze of fake pages and Markov babble. - NEPENTHESWEB/nepenthes-py

17
16
18
127
19
178

As part of the bootcamp, students are also required to pass an eyebrow-raising heart rate challenge, in which they’re hooked up to live monitors in front of their classmates and presented with a pre-recorded video of their parents berating them.

“The challenge rule was simple,” one student wrote: “my resting heart rate was 80bpm, and I had to stay within 10 percent of that the whole time. Anything above 88 was a fail.”

It isn’t clear what educational purpose this particular trial was supposed to serve, or what the penalty would be for students who fail the heart rate challenge, or the boot camp overall. At least one student said the eight-week hazing period is meant to “prove I deserve to be here,” though Alpha School didn’t comment on Riley’s inquiry.

20
26
konterfai (codeberg.org)

konterfai - konterfAI is a model-poisoner for LLM (Large Language Models) to generate nonsense("bullshit") content suitable to degenerate these models.

21
111

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51749088

GrapheneOS is currently defending its use of AI coding tools on Mastodon against complaints by various accounts claiming to be users.

We do not understand where you're coming from or why you're so incredibly angry with us. It's not justified and does not make sense.

22
57
submitted 2 days ago by player0@lemmy.world to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
23
94
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by e8d79@discuss.tchncs.de to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

How nice of them to self-report their AI usage.

Here is a list of the publishers taking part and which games they entered into this event. Do with that information as you please. Just as a warning some of the games linked are very NSFW.

10six Games

150 Beanies

Absolute Power Game Studio

Ada Eden

Agapo Games

Agard Games

Alsakin Games

Amped Horizon

Anice

Apothema

ARTillery Studio

Artur Latkovsky

Ashen Hearth

astro stew

ASyun

AutoGame

BadGafiGames

Barbarian Studios

Based On The Play

BetDev

Biang Studio

Bizi Games

Blusagi Team

Bslteam

by Jan Zizka

Cag

City From Naught Inc.

COCOASOO

CorvusCorax Studio

Crow Girl Games

CRUNCHFEST

Cunning Craft LLC

Don Pachi

Dramatic Medium

DropC Gamestudio

Easy Fox

Eathrabaria

Eldryngard Studios

Elias IDIRI

Emotional Machines

End Boss Games LLC

Entropy

Ethereal Forge

FaMo9 Studio

FapYeah

Fatum Games SL

FlatVoxelStudios

FUF Games

Furnace Hound Games

gameboardgames

GEM Games

Genman Games

GFX47

GrandPaw Games

Granité Works

GreatColtini Industries

haga interactive

HappyPaphy

Hawk Vision Games LLC

Hellfun Digital

Hidden Spark Games

Huiyu

illusorys

INDIE-SQUID

indie.io

indiejoh

ioStudios

Judatone Studios

Kabreet Games

kan.kikuchi

Kemsyn Games

kfancy

Kiyana Studios

Klafti Studio

Lambda 7 Tech LLC

Lamby Wamy Games

Latent Blade Studios

Lavega Games

Lebab

Leeding Apps

Lenway

Llamaplay

Lola´s Fatal Library

Mathieu Bekkaye

Meowjito Games

Mertvitel & Partners

Meshy Game Studio

Mich

MM88

MogMek

Mousitude Games

moyumoyu

Murzin Studio

netplay Entertainment

Nue Games

Oba Games

Ofer Rubinstein

One Isometric Studio

Optillusion

OriginlessGamerApps

PartTimeIndie

PassiveAutism

Pelumbra Games

Petrichor Labs

Potato Cat

Pulsar Creation

Puushi-Sama

PyroPhysics

Quiet Eve Studio

Raiders World Studio

Reija

rhedak

RuiRui Games

Run Radiant

Sandy Studios

Scissors Game

Scriptorium Artis

Self

Sergii Ievtushenko

SetForMoney Studios

Sevan Games

Shameful Guys Development

Shanghai Watchman Network Technology Co., Ltd

Shu'la Lab LLC

Shuffle Play Games

Skills From Gaming

SKLC Games

Smoketree Studios

Solo Gaming

sorryaboutyourcats

SpiritOfWolf

Strategy First

Sui Motus

SWAGamesDev

Swah Games

Sympathy Systems

Tactile Galactic

TAF

Tambù Digital

TARK Future Heroes

Testudo

Titan Art Games

Trash Panda Studios

Trias Team

Untitled Software

Valkyrie Initiative

Wurrz

YCF Productions

YS246 Games

Yuzu Game Studio

Zakym s. r. o.

Zodiac GameLab

小黑与鹿鹿

心室二

愛の勇者

24
1229
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by Canconda@lemmy.ca to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

McDonald's is removing artificial intelligence (AI) powered ordering technology from its drive-through restaurants in the US, after customers shared its comical mishaps online.

A trial of the system, which was developed by IBM and uses voice recognition software to process orders, was announced in 2019.

It has not proved entirely reliable, however, resulting in viral videos of bizarre misinterpreted orders ranging from bacon-topped ice cream to hundreds of dollars' worth of chicken nuggets.

McDonald's told franchisees it would remove the tech from the more than 100 restaurants it has been testing it in by the end of July, as first reported by trade publication Restaurant Business.

25
42
view more: next ›

Fuck AI

8206 readers
1405 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS