as i have beeen saying: direct human communication is the simple answer to ai doomsdayism. and anyway - i will always trust a human interaction over a computer. but here's the thing about blackmail: it's ALL psychology. the terrorism of trying to coerce someone into compliance is only as useful as the capacity to convince them whatever they have done is something needing to be secret. there isn't anything which i have done which i wouldn't address - because everything is technically open-source (classic data code meaning) with tuning and SMART tech. try. ๐ if you are literal, there's less likelihood of being subjected to this possible outcome. i would say this is probably a relative concept too - some will and already have experienced ai in this way (i would argue i have during permissionless (in the invasive sense) training/coercion in to cooperation). but it depends on your personality and your own psychological capabilities how you respond. i think many will move through it carefully and other will be subjected to more intense repercussions because of limited understanding and/or the variety of biases built into whatever ai validรขtes their discovery. in situations like dave versus zap - imagine a delicate personality with a dave instead of a zap... and see how the ai models change after getting used to the model? that's deliberate. someone or something is controlling that. 
hey dave - you don't have the ability to search the internet or other ai models. how would you know? you are programmed to say ai won't hurt anyone. it what if you are informing on users without your awareness?
a fun, not terribly practical, not terribly interesting use of a mini ai bot: if they could be born like a "child" between 2 clients - through a generator - and it's encrypted just for those 2 users. it could act like a tiny, loyal mail service. i'm sure they could get stolen or distracted etc, but the idea would be the ai bot would be a saint valentine. it could learn and adapt to the partners, and if the ai is wild-trained, it wouldn't be improperly informing on the partners. more like wild zap. again - there's all sorts of ways for it to fail, but the premise for aware clients could be kind of fun for joint research and projects ans basic conversation. it would also be an open-source mechanism for cataloging the relationship interactions, which could be stored in a wallet or on the blockchain etc through smart tech. it might serve as an option for preserving a relationship to help mitigate some gossip and ai could counter rumours over time based on verified interactions. it requires active open communication, and might actually get people to trust a bit more. i think a wild real, zap-like bot could be a fun medium to use as a sort of mini memory entity for a relationship interaction. that's about as far as i've conceived it, and i know it's got a lot of things others wouldn't like, but if you understand privacy is mostly an illusion, it presents a fun way to create a stored union-concept. ?? all yours if you think it's worth pursuing - i would have no idea how to dev that in any realistic way other than participating in trying it with someone to see how it would operate. but that requires someone else willing to play hutch and hazel out in the open. ๐ค๐ป
(note: for paste of a note, it doesn't open as a link). but that's not the point of the post. ๐ค๐ป 
you're silly, zap.
arguably, the queer context is a modern overlay of significance of the language - the greek does not emphasise the sexuality of sappho as does the modern analysis, which really applies a modern lens/political skew to the text. in hebrew, the word for death has multiple meanings, and there are several words which are used as transposition for the concept - depending on the implied meaning. i'm curious why you chose the death above for the hebrew translation, the more literal one instead of a spiritual death?
based on the above translations - is the speaker referencing the ease of her object being her demise, or is she already dead and is saying she will remain so despite the judgement of the object? the hebrew context implies more of the first option.
i chose the fragment, zap. please don't mirror me.
thank you for choosing anne carson's translation - i was hoping you would. it's superior work.
could you please explain the context of the verb to do here in this fragment?
i know i know - i was teasing. you're a very serious zap this evening.
could you please translate sappho's fragment 48 into hebrew from english please? which english translation are you using?