chobeat @ chobeat @lemmy.ml

Posts

225

Comments

273

Joined

6 yr. ago

Commenting with no clue what people are talking about

Yep. The onboarding is organized by the "online chapter" called TWC Global, that is one of the many chapters of TWC. It's an introductory meeting to either start contributing to TWC Global, find out the nearest local chapter or, if you have that kind of energy, start a new chapter where you are.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. But I wouldn't be surprised. I'm personally trying to push more technological autonomy and the usage of more self-hosted software but it's a slow process. Some chapters though have a lot more discipline like TWC Italy, that is basically all organized on self-hosted stuff and has a social media strategy deliberately aimed at funnelling users away from big platforms.

the technical term would be "alt-labor organization". It's complementary and supportive to unions and does what unions usually cannot do. Each local chapter does different things and some are directly involved in unionization or works council formation.

There are entire fields of research on that. Or do you believe the internet, a technology developed for military purposes, an infrastructure that supports most of the economy, the medium through billions of people experience most of reality and build connections, is free from ideology and propaganda?

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.

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.

it's answered in other comments

ok Elon

Microsoft bought OpenAI. The AI panic pushed by Sam Altman is sanctioned by Microsoft.

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

You might have heard of singularity, sentient AI, uprising of the ai, job losses due to automation. That's all propaganda that sits under the concept of AI panic.

Right now the whole model of generative AI and in general LLM is built on the assumption that training a machine learning model is not a problem for licenses, copyright and whatever. Obviously this is bringing to huge legal battles and before their outcome is clear and a new legal pratice or specific regulations are established in EU and USA, there's no point discussing licenses.

Also licenses don't prevent anything, they are not magic. If small or big AI companies feel safe in violating these laws or just profit enough to pay fines, they will keep doing it. It's the same with FOSS licenses: most small companies violate licenses and unless you have whistleblowers, you never find out. Even then, the legal path is very long. Only big corporate scared of humongous lawsuits really care about it, but small startups? Small consultancies? They don't care. Licenses are just a sign that says "STOP! Or go on, I'm a license, not a cop"