THE ANNIHILATION OF MAN

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.

And it can also state inaccurate fact with CORRECT sources that contradict it.

So even 91% is being generous. They searched factual information multiple times, and even the same query could come back with different results.

Twice in my youth (once in high school and once in college) I was in situations where I was asking someone out and I could tell they were calculating in their heads the risks of rejecting me, and both times I said, out loud, "you can say no, I wouldn't have asked if I wasn't prepared for either answer." And then they said no. This wasn't some spark of special wisdom I had - I knew to do it because feminist conversations among my age group brought it up regularly. This isn't happening nearly enough anymore.

More recently, I was really glad when we got to "rejection sensitive dysphoria" in my IOP program and it was one of those symptoms where the therapists really emphasized how it affects others. Because it does.

This is actually a pretty controversial part of researching queer history, so I am going to try and give a thorough answer! There is a vocal portion of people who study history who believe that using modern labels to describe historical figures does harm to the study of history. I've heard both sides of the argument pretty thoroughly so I'll try and sum up my understandings on them, while also sharing my personal viewpoint.

Okay on the side of not using modern terms I find the more academic side of the argument. The thing is, the labels as we understand them now have fluctuated intensely and will likely continue to do so. So it means it's a different thing to call someone trans fifty years ago versus now. There was a time that the popular (and academic) understanding of transgender excluded anyone with same gender attraction. So people like Lou Sullivan were excluded from medical treatment because they were gay and trans. This is to say that without a fixed definition of labels it is hard to pin a historical figure down with certainty and doing so runs the risk of erasing or diminishing any evidence that doesn't suit the label.

It is also worth discussing that words like "queer" imply difference and when applied to cultures where same-gender attraction and gender nonconformity are normal, it can flatten the unique realities between cultures. Like, just because in some European cultures "queerness" was an oddity, does not mean that is a universal truth. There are many cultures and eras where what we understand now as "queerness" wouldn't be different or unexpected to any degree. On that note, applying the term queerness to cultures where the gender binary didn't exist runs the risk of flattening the discussions and participating in a neo-colonial line of thought.

All of this being said, I personally think that these arguments have merit, but don't convince me. First I have to speak to my personal experience which is to say the more discourse there is around a type of identity the more this argument is trotted out. It is not applied universally by any stretch of the imagination.

You will absolutely see people call a historical figure gay, but then start arguments over using they/them pronouns, asexual, aromantic, and two-spirit identities. I also believe in a debunking argument that says that if we are willing to use the word "feminist" to describe people before the more modern birth of the feminist movement, then queer terms are also allowed.

That being said, I absolutely respect the academic perspective of not using ANY of these terms and exploring history without labels like these at all and maybe finding more nuance through that method. The thing is I don't think just because it makes sense in one type of discussion, it should be applied to EVERY type of conversation. There is frankly an obvious difference between an academic book or paper versus a project like ours that is framed around accessibility.

I also find the people who fight against using these terms often have a very fixed version of history in their minds. There is one way of looking at the past and that is the CORRECT way, which in my opinion is a thought stopping behaviour. I think bringing queer terms into historical discussions reflects something very important about the study of history, fluidity.

Any study of history that relies on one truth, one perspective, and perfection, doesn't interest me. I think what makes history so valuable as an object of study is that we are always learning more and are always expanding our understandings.

I have gotten some backlash for using they/them pronouns for historical figures that did not use these pronouns during their life. But I am not married to the idea that if they were alive today they would use these pronouns. The conversation I am instead having is that when we aren't sure using they/them is a good default. Instead of it being a theory about one persons personal identity, it is instead a reminder that in this moment we are sitting in uncertainty and that's okay. I love when I see people use she/her pronouns for Claude Cahun, or King Kristina, I think they are making a valid choice. My use of they/them is often to remind people that it is a choice that they are making.

He was wrongfully raided by police in 2022

He used footage and names of the specific cops in posts, videos and songs making fun of them

The cops sued for defamation and cried in court about the songs ruining their lives

And this is one of the ones that really hurt a grown man's feelings:

With an update since getting it back:

This is “Kindled” by Laura K. Cannon, which is part of her portfolio that can be found here: http://navate.com/2wk6im1sartc92iwza7il07bxq2mk5

“This went kinda viral on tumblr and people are arguing whether it’s a painting of Aphrodite. It’s not. If she must be a goddess, I think she’d be Pele, the Hawaiian goddess of fire.

But it doesn’t depict anyone specifically. After some soul-searching I realize that, while I wasn’t thinking about it at the time, it’s a painting about battling depression. I live with MDD so the idea of emerging from the depths is a powerful thing for me.

Is she being born from the lava, or is she climbing out of Hell? I think it’s both.”