Never having heard the term AI panic makes this kinda meaningless. But I guess AI panic is evil, as it is promoted by the typically more evil companies?
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.
But how are Microsoft and other LLM companies marketing on AI Panic?
I honestly don’t understand what this graph means. I don’t get what the four sectors mean, how the author decided to distribute companies among the four sectors, or why the four sectors are divided into two equivalent circles.
All I can figure out is the pink side is pure evil and the blue side are our saviors. Given the color scheme, perhaps this is yet another failed gender reveal?
automation never reduces jobs. It fragments them, it reduces their quality, it increases deskilling and replaceability. We are not going to work less as we never worked less thanks to automation. If we want to work less, we need unionization, not machines.
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. fortune.com/…/sam-altman-ai-risk-of-extinction-pa…
deliberately harmful tool ???
I am using it, and yes, it can be inaccurate sometimes, but deliberately harmful?
The link that you gave is not about this AI, but potential danger of some future AGI, which would have to be more powerful than this one.
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.
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?
That’s my point, nearly everything in life have good and bad sides, you have to use it accordingly. Would you believe if I say that a banal kitchen knife can be used to murder people? Those kitchen knife manufacturers released a product which is a harmful tool! And they knew that!
“Our AI is so good, it’s going to start replacing skilled laborers” is a hell of a sales pitch. I can’t even be mad, using panic to market AI is clever.
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
I think it fits into the idea that people selling AI are pitching it as “this product is powerful either you buy now or pay for not doing so later” and they have an incentive to overstate its power.
But that’s all marketing, it’s not specific to AI.
Any company that does marketing is looking to create demand and generate interest. Part of generating interest is tapping into your desire , which could include want to get ahead and not getting left behind.
What is this based on? Some kind of paper? Were there objective criteras, which were choosen beforehand, and on which the companies were rated, leading to there grouping in these groups?
Or did you just made up 4 cool sounding categories, which you fitted various companies in, based on your personal opinion?
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.
I’ve heard that moneied interests are paying Twitter and now reddit behind the scenes to ruin their respective communities. It’s because every time something happens that shakes the foundation of who’s in charge, it’s always a social media coordinated public effort behind the push for change. The most recent one I can think of is the Twitter-fueled women’s rights movement in Iran. Or even the push to get progressive names like AOC elected.
So now we have rich interests paying CEOs to sabotage their own companies in order to better maintain the status quo.
I know this concept falls squarely into conspiracy theory territory, but with Twitter and reddit, both once bastions of progressive organization, going to shit at the same time, and threads popping up with the messaging that they explicitly want to avoid news and politics, you can’t help but wonder if there’s a concentrated effort behind the scenes to break up communities that are actually starting to make a difference.
I mean what makes far more sense is that interests rates have skyrocketed, which means VC money dried up, which means these platforms that haven’t made money in over a decade suddenly have to figure out how to run themselves.
It’s not just Reddit and Twitter, it’s YouTube and Twitch also.
It also might have something to do with the people running the show are now being tasked with real work and it turns out they aren’t good at their job.
Yeah I think this is the Occam’s razor explanation that makes more sense. And why might Reddit be doing such a similar thing so soon after twitter? Spez has said he’s in touch with Elon and admires his business decisions. Simple as that.
For those in control … there is no more terrible thing than to have all your workers talking amongst one another to discuss how terrible their situation is and what they could all do about it.
It’s the same in prison … if the guards and management keep everyone in control by isolating them all. Once the inmates start talking to one another, they start to conspire and plan on what to do about their situation. If they plan long enough, they’ll figure out how to do illegal activity, find specialty items or contraband … give them more time and they’ll start trying to figure out how to break out of their situation.
Then when things go too far and all sorts of illegal activity is taking place and people are trying to break out … the guards and managers will shake up the prison and breakup the communications system they were all using.
It doesn’t sound too outlandish. The destruction of Twitter seems to attract some replacement from the far-right groups, Threads is already gaining far-right pages promotion and Reddit is still in the phase of destroying a once very influencial community. And all in the same time as the beginning of the US electoral campaign. It really aligns with a concentrated effort
They are directly selling AI-based products and services. They release or boost sensational stories about those capabilities through their various channels of media influence so they can make their products seem more powerful and useful than they really are. The sensationalisation widens the window on what seems possible even if it’s nowhere near the reality. Even people who don’t buy into those notions about society-destroying automation or humanity-threatening emergence are more likely to buy into stuff that seems tamer but still lacks any substantial proof of viability like AI driving or AI written movie scripts.
lemmy.ml
Oldest