How is using comic pictograms as one of the many ways we communicate some sort of reversion? We use different vocabularies when talking to different audiences, for instance I speak much more casually with friends than with my boss. We often specifically use vocabulary and word choice to provide context to the nature of the conversation. Like using formal and respectful wording to highlight professionalism, or using casual slang to highlight a joking or lighthearted tone.

As we have moved more informal conversations to written form (texting everyday with friends is a lot more casual than sending paper letter correspondence through the mail to friends), we have added ways to provide tonal context that is lost by not hearing someone’s voice or seeing their body language. Adding “LOL” or “haha” to indicate your statement is meant to be a joking tone, for instance. Emojis are just another way to do that and to reinforce the casual nature of the communication. Someone might use the turtle emoji when messaging their girlfriend about how long they have been waiting in line to give the message a cute playful tone, where they wouldn’t use it when talking about a production slowdown in a message to their coworkers.

Its fine not to like emojis, but it is eyerollingly pretentious to act like it is some indication of the de-evolution of society.

I’m not sure I understand this comment. Emojis are a form of communication. Communications can and are evidence used in court. If someone drew pictures related to guns, and then was accused of a gun crime, that evidence would be used. If someone communicated non-verbally to someone by drawing their finger across their throat and then pointing at the person, who later alleged they were attacked by that person, that would be evidence. Emojis are simplified pictograms used as shorthand to communicate, like acronyms or initialisms are simplified representations of multiple words, like someone saying “RIP to you for what you did” could be a threat.

If someone sent an email threatening someone else, the court should not present that email incorrectly as raw HTML code. If a WhatsApp message was sent with text bolded for emphasis, it shouldn’t be shown to the jury in plain text. So I don’t understand this derisive attitude towards "emoji evidence."

>None of those are specifically "AI" issues. The technology used is irrelevant.

I mean, just because you could kill a million people by hand doesn't mean that a pistol, or an automatic weapon, or nuclear weapons aren't an issue, just an irrelevant technology. Guns in a home make suicide more likely simply because they are a tool that allows for a split-second action. "If someone really wants to do X, they will find a way" just doesn't map onto reality.

It seems like the key to your argument is having more money to gamble with, like would come from family money. Like if your father owned an emerald mine, or your parents gave you a quarter million to start a business, or you started a hedge fund with a million dollars raised from “family and friends.”