The US government just banned Roombas

(theverge.com)

24 points | by leumon 8 hours ago ago

16 comments

  • leumon 8 hours ago ago
  • dlcarrier 5 hours ago ago

    I'll never understand why the US government didn't let Amazon acquire that dead husk of a company. Letting it fall into the hands of its overseas suppliers was the very clear alternative and clearly a far worse option.

  • ChrisArchitect an hour ago ago
  • theflyingelvis 6 hours ago ago

    The orangutan is turning the US into Cuba

    • inigyou 5 hours ago ago

      I thought the better comparison was Russia

  • eth0up 8 hours ago ago

    Because it's related and yet went nowhere, I'll drop this link here:

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49101395

    Which is article titled "A Dark-Money Campaign Is Paying Influencers to Frame Chinese AI as a Threat" by Taylor Lorenz.

    Apropos, I think

    And my own question: If China AI bad, why more bad than US AI? Will Chinese vacuum-robot abduct Trump as did Anthropic Maduro? That would be bad, but China not seem interested in such thing

    https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/pentagon-used...

    • vsgherzi 5 hours ago ago

      For your own question. All ai is going to come with the bias of the country that made it. If you ask the various Chinese ai models about Taiwan you’re going to get some interesting responses compared to the US ones. However this is mostly irrelevant to the larger picture. The larger issue is that AI is the new thing and it’s got potential. It’s driving economies and is on the world stage this is what makes it important.

      So it’s less that other countries have an evil ai and more what does it mean if the US dosent “win” here. In that sense Chinese AI is absolutely a threat and should be considered especially with the gold rush currently happening in the field.

    • 83642736392 3 hours ago ago

      Taylor Lorenz, the ticktock influencer?

      • eth0up 2 hours ago ago

        No. The journalist who wrote the linked story, and covered a verifiable topic. Do you object to the personality, the face, the name, or the data? Please address the actual subject and data presented here, and save the ad hominems for later, when the work has been completed.

    • doublepg23 8 hours ago ago

      [flagged]

      • eth0up 8 hours ago ago

        Any evidence her article was fabricated? If not, what is your point, if any?

        • quentindanjou 7 hours ago ago

          There is no evidence. I didn't know but apparently right-wing Americans are harassing her, according to Wikipedia[1]

          > Lorenz has been the subject of online harassment, which multiple sources have described as coordinated or orchestrated.

          > Much of the harassment has originated from right-wing online spaces.

          > The Independent wrote, "Lorenz is a regular target of attacks from the right online, with comments she makes frequently blowing up and feeding an arguably disingenuous outrage culture, so much so that she has been called 'the most harassed technology journalist in America' and her career recommended for study to fellow reporters".

          [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Lorenz

          • eth0up 6 hours ago ago

            I can only surmise why your comment is being pecked at, but I appreciate this info. I was not aware of this.

  • mindslight 7 hours ago ago

    Another instance of addressing a longstanding issue, but in a way that merely sidesteps the fundamental problem and opts for ham-fisted destruction instead. Of course this is not terribly surprising from a regime whose primary aim seems to be parting out the United States for scrap value.

    The answer here has always been regulation to unbundle hardware, software, and services. Fundamentally this is an antitrust issue - a manufacturer of hardware should not be able to force purchasers to run particular software on it (whether overtly through technical restrictions or merely tacitly through lack of documentation). And a developer of embedded software should not be able to force users to interact with a particular network-provided service to use the software.

    But of course actually enacting such constructive reforms would run afoul of the domestic surveillance industry, which enjoys employing such anti-competitive tactics to bolster their own positions. And so we get fake reforms aimed at further restricting competition.