FriendOfDeSoto

For years, when Meta launched new features for Instagram, WhatsApp and Facebook, teams of reviewers evaluated possible risks: Could it violate users' privacy? Could it cause harm to minors? Could it worsen the spread of misleading or toxic content?

Until recently, what are known inside Meta as privacy and integrity reviews were conducted almost entirely by human evaluators.

Really? Humans? Maybe even qualified humans? Huh! Never would've thought that.

Set your timers. We're going to hear about a non-ethical decision made by this system in 5, 4, 3, ...

We humans always underestimate the time it actually takes for a tech to change the world. We should travel in self-flying flying cars and on hoverboards already but we're not.

The disseminators of so-called AI have a vested interest in making it seem it's the magical solution to all our problems. The tech press seems to have had a good swig from the koolaid as well overall. We have such a warped perception of new tech, we always see it as magical beans. The internet will democratize the world - hasn't happened; I think we've regressed actually as a planet. Fully self-drving cars will happen by 2020 - looks at calendar. Blockchain will revolutionize everything - it really only provided a way for fraudsters, ransomware dicks, and drug dealers to get paid. Now it's so-called AI.

I think the history books will at some point summarize the introduction of so-called AI as OpenAI taking a gamble with half-baked tech, provoking its panicked competitors into a half-baked game of oneupmanship. We arrived at the plateau in the hockey stick graph in record time burning an incredible amount of resources, both fiscal and earthly. Despite massive influences on the labor market and creative industries, it turned out to be a fart in the wind because skynet happened a 100 years later. I'm guessing 100 so it's probably much later.

If we needed everyone we want to name anything after was required to be a saint, we wouldn't have anybody to name stuff after.

Churchill - the man who rose to lead his country through WW2 - was a big colonial killer in India before. Both the reformator Luther and the philosopher Kant were raging antisemites. A non-insignificant number of US founding fathers held slaves. Bill Clinton balanced the budget while molesting an intern (and allegedly worse). It's rare that we already know the president is a sexual predator before he gets elected. Yet, there will be a probably very small library named after 47 if there isn't one already. It's probably the best library in the world!

History goes through many hands before it gets whittled to a generally agreed upon narrative. Churchill was lucky in real life. Daystromn was lucky in canon. And while sympathies may change over time, I'm not expecting a name change in trek Okinawa.

This is the "how much is a pint of milk?" politicians gotcha question of the so-called-AI age.

I don't like Facebook, I don't like this "legend," I don't like so-called AI being forcefed down our throats. I've yet to see a reliably good use case that makes me forget how many polar bears get cooked while we are playing around with this quarter-baked tech. And I don't think it's right to just syphon off the training data either.

That being said, I want to defend old Nick a tiny bit. Why doesn't he think it's feasible to go to every copyright holder and ask for permission? Because the stuff is readily available online. Either because people put it there voluntarily. Or because people torrented it, file-shared it, stole it. I'm not excusing one crime with another committed by somebody else. This is just about the motivation: why don't they go around to every artist and ask? Because they don't have to. And they have deep enough pockets to pay later if they have to. If you were sitting in Facebook's c suite (you know what the c stands for), and you were entangled in a race to the bottom with the Googles and OpenAIs of this world, this makes business sense unfortunately. And if you have ever enjoyed pirated content online, you are (as I am) culpable in a homeopathic dose. If we didn't occasionally break the law, Meta would have to go ask more artists because there would be no other way. That's the status quo we find ourselves in. The moral gray zone.

I suggested in another thread a new law, based off of Murphy's. Anything that can be training data, will become training data. Whether it's a big company or a rich privateer with large server capacity - somebody is going to take it. It's not right and just and legal and at the same time an inevitability. That's why all these measures to get these companies to ask artists is akin to trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted. We need to milk these companies for money, percentages of revenue and raised funds, and find a way to distribute this among the artists. Fines, taxes, voluntary contributions - all the tools need to be thrown at companies that train or apply the various models. The longer we spend pearl clutching at the audacity of these big corporations, the more money they get to keep.

Technically, smoking weed in the Netherlands is illegal. The law just isn't enforced. Stealing bicycles is illegal everywhere but they get stolen all the time. Abortion may be illegal but tolerated until a certain time where you live. We have many scenarios where we're stuck in the moral gray zone. Where illegal things just happen and life goes on. I am afraid that so-called AI has provided us with another one.

I don't like it, I don't like it at all. I just don't see any other way to move forward. Weavers hated the industrialization, horse breeders the introduction of the automobile, the music industry Napster et al., and everyone will hate so-called AI.

There are legendary villains too. But truthfully, he doesn't even fit that bill either despite having worked for Facebook. Maybe he's just the legendary wart on the arse of history.

Normally, when somebody on the internet starts a question with "Am I the only one ...?" my first reaction is to say no, of course not. This is the first time that I really need to question that conviction. I think you just might be the only one!

The founders and other info can be found here.

And wouldn't you know it? Both men, and both on Xwitter and LinkedIn.

I can agree with a lot here but I also have to admit that I fell at the first hurdle.

I think that depends how convincing and what words the AI uses

Hard disagree here. If you're using so-called AI today, the responsibility to scrutinize everything it throws at you is yours. No matter how neatly packaged or convincingly worded it is. There is a failure rate - the news is full of stories. You're setting off to climb a mountain. You cannot trust the 1s and 0s.

As for the sat nav culpability, Google gives elevation information when they have it. I would not be surprised when we found out that was the case for these dumdums. It's a bit like reading an old paper map though. If you don't know more saturated colors mean higher elevation you might have set off 30 years ago to climb this 12k ft mountain in flip-flops as well. I don't think we should blame sat navs for the ignorance here either. Unless they hide that info maliciously.

To a certain degree, copyright holder decries possible limitations on copyright as foul, that's not really news, is it?

Elton John garnered success in a time when you could earn a pretty penny by selling records. As a result, he has a lot of well paying dogs in this fight. It's nice that he wants to protect the younglings. I just wonder if he knows that that ship has already sailed for them. Most contemporary artists don't earn shit on streams, selling records is not sustainable income, and you can only make money on concerts really. Branding is almost more important than content. What is he looking to protect then for the younger artists? An industry in decline anyway?

I think we may have to come to terms with the possibility that everything that can be made available as training data will be used as training data. A shit Murphy's Law if you will. Facebook torrenting their training data is just the first sign of it. In the end, it will be indistinguishable and unremovable. This sort of thinking may be going alongside the incessant lobbying of tech bros at Westminster.

What we need is to extract money from the companies who do this and spread it among artists. A percentage of their revenues from two years sgo and all fundrausing goes into a fund. Musicians, artists, film makers, writers etc. join the fund and get a cut. Money is the only thing that would make these companies think twice. Right now the price for running roughshod over everything including the law is relatively cheap for them. We have to raise the price. That would be more productive than calling politicians idiots in my opinion.

AI isn't putting people's lives in danger here. It's the people's ignorance that puts their lives in danger. This is the same as when car navigation apps became available and people turned and sank their cars into creeks and harbors because they trusted their navi provider's faulty map data more than their own eyes and common sense. The problem is "cluesless people." If you are just trusting all the info chatGPT finds for you, you are the problem. We can't just outsource the attribution of blame for all idiotic actions to so-called AI.

Depends on your definition of common. When the movable type printing press came to the British Isles, the available characters didn't include the thorn so printers used the y as a stand-in. It was the beginning of the end and all "ye olde shoppe" signs are just a snapshot of a particular time in history.