• 10 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 5 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 8th, 2019

help-circle









  • to a reasonably large audience

    That’s a measure of success that makes sense only in a for-profit, growth-oriented environment. Software just has to be sustainable and “bigger” doesn’t necessarily imply "more sustainable.

    That said, what is now possible with social media is extremely restricted and our idea of what a social media is is constrained by profit motives. Social media could be much more, connect humans for collaboration and exchange instead of data extraction. We are so used to the little crumbs of positive experiences on social media that we normalized it.

    Bonfire, for example, if we want to stick to the fediverse, is trying to challenge this narrative and push the boundaries of what a social media is supposed to do.

    Another space would be non-siloed notion-like tools.

    Anothe entire can of worms would be to go beyond the “dictatorship of the app” and start building software and UX around flexibility and customizability for the average user, rather than keeping this a privilege for tools targeting power users. Flexibility in UX means harder trackability and less CTR, so most end-user “apps” avoid that.










  • This paper explain a taxonomy of harms created by LLMs: https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3531146.3533088

    OpenAI released ChatGPT without systems to prevent or compensate these harms and being fully aware of the consequences, since this kind of research has been going on for several years. In the meanwhile they’ve put some paper-thin countermeasures on some of these problems but they are still pretty much a shit-show in terms of accountability. Most likely they will get sued into oblivion before regulators outlaw LLMs with dialogical interfaces. This won’t do much for the harm that open-source LLMs will create but at least will limit large-scale harm to the general population.


  • chobeat@lemmy.mlOPtoTechnology@lemmy.mlAI panic is a marketing strategy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s not from me but from AlgorithmWatch, one of the most famous and respected NGOs in the field of Algorithmic accountability. They published plenty of stuff on these topics and human rights threats from these companies.

    Also this is an ecosystem analysis of political positioning. These companies and think tanks are going on newspapers with their names to say we should panic about AI. It’s not a secret, just open Google News and you fill find a landslide of news on these topics sponsored by these companies with a simple search.






  • chobeat@lemmy.mlOPtoTechnology@lemmy.mlAI panic is a marketing strategy
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    They published a deliberately harmful tool against the advice of civil society, experts and competitors. They are not only reckless but tasked since their foundation with the mission to create chaos. Don’t forget the idea behind OpenAI in the beginning was to damage the advantage that Google and Facebook had on AI by releasing machine learning technology in open source. They definitely did it and now they are expanding their goals. They are not in for the money (ChatGPT will never be profitable), they are playing a bigger game.

    Pushing the AI panic is not just a marketing strategy but a way to build power. The more they are considered dangerous, the more regulations will be passed that will impact the whole sector. https://fortune.com/2023/05/30/sam-altman-ai-risk-of-extinction-pandemics-nuclear-warfare/


  • In the picture you can see organizations moving in the public sphere around AI. On the left you have right-wing and libertarian think tanks, corporations and frontline actors that fuel a sense of panic around AI, either to sabotage their business competitors or to leverage this panic to project an idea of being sellers of a very powerful tool while at the same time deflecting responsibility. If the AI is dangerous and sentient, you won’t care much about the engineers behind.

    On the right you have several public orgs or NGOs operating in the field of algorithmic accountability, digital rights and so on. They push the opposite of the AI panic, pointing the finger at the corporations and powers that create and govern AI