this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023

0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

59424 readers

3168 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

OpenAI just admitted it can't identify AI-generated text. That's bad for the internet and it could be really bad for AI models. (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

OpenAI just admitted it can't identify AI-generated text. That's bad for the internet and it could be really bad for AI models.::In January, OpenAI launched a system for identifying AI-generated text. This month, the company scrapped it.

top 7 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The wording of every single article has such an anti AI slant, and I feel the propaganda really working this past half year. Still nobody cares about advertising companies, but LLMs are the devil.

Existing datasets still exist. The bigger focus is in crossing modalities and refining content.

Why is the negative focus always on the tech and not the political system that actually makes it a possible negative for people?

I swear, most of the people with heavy opinions don't even know half of how the machines work or what they are doing.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am so tired of techno-fetishist AI bros complaining every single time any of the many ways in which AI will devastate and rot out daily lives is brought up.

"It's not the tech! It's the economic system!"

As if they're different things? Who is building the tech? Who is pouring billions into the tech? Who is protecting the tech from proper regulation, smartass? I don't see any worker coops using AI.

"You don't even know how it works!"

Just a thought terminating cliche to try to avoid any discussion or criticism of your precious little word generators. No one needs to know how a thing works to know it's effects. The effects are observable reality.

Also, nobody cares about advertising companies? What the hell are you on about?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

they are different things. it's not exclusively large companies working on and understanding the technology. there's a fantastic open-source community, and a lot of users of their creations.

would destroying the open-source community help prevent the big-tech from taking over? that battle has already been lost and needs correction. crying about the evil of A.I. doesn't actually solve anything. "proper" regulation is also relative. we need entirely new paradigms of understanding things like "I.P." which aren't based on a century of lobbying from companies like disney. etc.

and yes, understanding how something works is important for actually understanding the effects, when a lot of tosh is spewed from media sites that only care to say what gets people to engage.

i'd say a fraction of what i see as vaguely directed anger towards anything A.I. is actually relegated to areas that are actual severe and important breaches of public trust and safety, and i think the advertising industry should be the absolute focal point on the danger of A.I.

Are you also arguing against every other technology that has had their benefits hoarded by the rich?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It's mostly large companies, some models are open source (of which only some are also community driven), but the mainstream ones are the ones being entirely funded by, legally protected by, and pushed onto everything by capitalist olligarchs.

What other options do you have? I'm sick and tired of people like you seeing workers lose their jobs, seeing real people used like meat puppets by the internet, seeing so many artists risking their livelihoods, seeing that we'll have to lose faith in everything we see and read because it could be irrecognizably falsified, and CLAIMING you care about it, only to complain every single time any regulation or way to control this is proposed, because you either don't actually care and are just saying it for rhetoric, or you do care but only to the point you can still use your precious little toys restriction-free. Just overthrow the entire economic system of all countries on earth, otherwise don't do anything, let all those people burn! Do you realize how absurd you sound?

It's sociopathic. I don't say it as an insult, I say it applying the definition of a word, it's a complete lack of empathy and care for your fellow human beings, it's viewing an inmaterial piece of technology, nothing but a thoughtless word generator, like inherently worth more than the livelihood of millions. I'm absolutely sick of it. And then you have the audacity to try to seem like the reasonable ones when arguing about this, knowing if you had your way so many would suffer. Framing it as anti-capitalism knowing that if you had your way you'd pave the way for the olligarchs to make so many more billions off of that suffering.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

it's like you just ignored my main points.

get rid of the A.I. = the problem is still the problem. has been especially for the past 50 years, any non-A.I. advancement continues the trend in the exact same way. you solved nothing.

get rid of the actual problem = you did it! now all of technology is a good thing instead of a bad thing.

false information? already a problem without A.I. always has been. media control, paid propagandists etc. if anything, A.I. might encourage the main population to learn what critical thought is. it's still just as bad if you get rid of A.I.

" CLAIMING you care about it, only to complain every single time any regulation or way to control this is proposed, because you either don’t actually care and are just saying it for rhetoric" think this is called a strawman. i have advocated for particular A.I. tools to get much more regulation for over 5-10 years. how long have you been addressing the issue?

you have given no argument against A.I. currently that doesn't boil down to "the actual problem is unsolvable, so get rid of all automation and technology!" when addressed.

which again, solves nothing, and doesn't improve anything.

should i tie your opinions to the actual result of your actions?

say you succeed. A.I. is gone. nothing has changed. inequality is still getting worse and everything is terrible. congratulations! you managed to prevent countless scientific discoveries that could help countless people. congrats, the blind and deaf lose their potential assistants. the physically challenged lose potential house-helpers. etc.

on top of that, we lose the biggest argument for socializing the economy going forward, through massive automation that can't be ignored or denied while we demand a fair economy.

for some reason i expect i'm wasting my time trying to convince you, as your argument seems more emotionally motivated than rationalized.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What are you on about? Who's talking about "completely getting rid of AI"? And you accuse me of strawmanning? I didn't even argue that it should be stopped. I argued that every single time anyone tries or suggests doing anything to curtail these things people like you jump out to vehemently defend your precious programs from regulation or even just criticism, because we should either completely destroy capitalism or not do anything at all, there is no inbetween, there is nothing we can do to help anyone if it's not that.

Except there is. There are plenty of things that can be done to help the common people besides telling them "well just tough it out until we someday magically change the fundamentals of the economic system of the entire world, nerd". It just would involve restricting what these things can do. And you don't want that. It's fine but own up to it. Trying to have this image that you really do care about helping but just don't want to help at all unless it's via an incredibly unprobable miracle pisses me off.

false information? already a problem without A.I. always has been. media control, paid propagandists etc. if anything, A.I. might encourage the main population to learn what critical thought is. it’s still just as bad if you get rid of A.I.

For someone who accuses others of not understanding how AI works, to then say something like this is absurd. I hope you're being intellectually dishonest and not just that naive. There is absolutely no comparison between a paid propagandist and the irrecognizable replicas of real things you could fabricate with AI.

People are already abusing voice actors by sampling them and making covers with their voices without their permission and certainly without paying. We can already make amateur videos of the person speaking to pair it up with the generated audio. In a few years when the technology innevitably gets better I will be able to perfectly fabricate a video that can ruin someone's life with a few clicks. If this process is sophisticated enough there will be minimal points of failure, there will be almost nothing to investigate and try to figure out if the video is false or not. No evidence will ever mean anything, it could all be fabricated. If you don't see how this is considerably worse than ANYTHING we have right now to falsify information, then there is nothing I can say to ever convince you. "Oh, but if nothing can be demonstrably true anymore, the masses will learn critical thought!" Sure.

say you succeed. A.I. is gone. nothing has changed. inequality is still getting worse and everything is terrible. congratulations! you managed to prevent countless scientific discoveries that could help countless people. congrats, the blind and deaf lose their potential assistants. the physically challenged lose potential house-helpers. etc.

This is what I mean. You people lack any kind of nuance. You can only work in this "all or nothing" thinking. No "anti-AI" person wants to fully and completely destroy every single machine and program powered by artificial intelligence, jesus christ. It's almost like it's an incredibly versatile tool that has many uses that can be used for good and bad, It's almost like we should, call me an irrational emotional snowflake if you want, put regulations in place so the bad uses are heavily restricted, so we can live with this incredible technology without feeling constantly under threat because we are using it responsibly.

Instead what you propose is, don't you dare limit anything, open the flood gates and let's instead change the economic system so that the harmful don't also destroy people economically. Except the changes you want not only don't fix some of the problems unregulated and free AI use for everything bring, they go against the interests of every single person with power in this system, so they have an incredibly minuscule chance of ever being close to happening, much less happening peacefully. I'd be okay if it was your ultimate goal, but if you're not willing to have a compromise on something that could minimize the harm this is doing in the meantime without being a perfect solution, why shouldn't I assume you just don't care? What reasons are you giving me to not believe that you simply prefer seeing the advancements of technology rather than the security of your fellow humans, and you're just saying this as an excuse to keep it that way?

on top of that, we lose the biggest argument for socializing the economy going forward, through massive automation that can’t be ignored or denied while we demand a fair economy.

Right, because that's the way to socialize the economy. By having a really good argument. I'm sure it will convince the people that have unmeasurable amounts of wealth and power precisely because the economy is not socialized. It will be so convincing they will willingly give all of that up.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

then what the fuck are you even arguing? i never said "we should do NO regulation!" my criticism was against blaming A.I. for things that aren't problems created by A.I.

i said "you have given no argument against A.I. currently that doesn’t boil down to “the actual problem is unsolvable, so get rid of all automation and technology!” when addressed."

because you haven't made a cohesive point towards anything i've specifically said this entire fucking time.

are you just instigating debate for... a completely unrelated thing to anything i said in the first place? you just wanted to be argumentative and pissy?

i was addressing the general anti-A.I. stance that is heavily pushed in media right now, which is generally unfounded and unreasonable.

I.E. addressing op's article with "Existing datasets still exist. The bigger focus is in crossing modalities and refining content." i'm saying there is a lot of UNREASONABLE flak towards A.I. you freaked out at that? who's the one with no nuance?

your entire response structure is just.. for the sake of creating your own argument instead of actually addressing my main concern of unreasonable bias and push against the general concept of A.I. as a whole.

i'm not continuing with you because you are just making your own argument and being aggressive.

I never said "we can't have any regulation"

i even specifically said " i have advocated for particular A.I. tools to get much more regulation for over 5-10 years. how long have you been addressing the issue?"

jesus christ you are just an angry accusatory ball of sloppy opinions.

maybe try a conversation next time instead of aggressively wasting people's time.