"The term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ (AI) means many things to many people (see Table 1) (...). One meaning of ‘AI’ that seems often forgotten these days is one that played a crucial role in the birth of cognitive science as an interdiscipline in the 1970s and ’80s." 2/n

Thank you for sharing this -- and what a great, illuminating thread. It makes me want to dig into your paper more (which I just downloaded).

Yes, so there's a chasm between how accurate the LLMs actually are compared to how trustworthy people naturally find them. Very troubling.

That makes smart regulation even more urgent (tho such a challenge to keep up w/this tech).

Litigation is limited, but could be only option for remedy.

Can you elaborate on what you mean or what you are referring to? I wonder which particular academic discussions of AI you are finding unscientific (since there are many candidates).

The primary strategy for managing the pandemic is N95 masking and ventilation to prevent COVID19 infection, because non-severe or even asymptomatic infections also often lead to serious post-acute neuro/cardiac/immune sequelae.

Read:
www.nature.com/articles/s41...
and
www.nature.com/articles/s41...

Hm if that's really Zoom's motivation, the language in the TOS could/should be narrowed substantially.

Ah, very helpful, thank you!

I am definitely much more inclined to trust a Zoom alternative adhering to Norwegian privacy laws and GDPR globally.

How do they contradict each other? To me, 10.3 reads as "here are the things we will probably be currently using this data for," and 10.4 reads as "but we can do anything we want in the future."

Your reasoning to not worry about this seems to be:
1) it's been in Zoom TOS since March 2023
2) many other companies have similar language in their TOS.

Neither of those reasons makes me less concerned about this language in Zoom's TOS. Is there anything else important I missed in your argument?

Do you know if it has better data privacy protections?