I agree that the core claim of the MM report is not under dispute. But take a look at their article now that you know the context around how those ads were generated.
I don’t know if it’s defamatory, but you have to agree that it comes off as a bit disingenuous based on the new info from X. Of course that info from X could be BS, which is why I said we’ll have to wait for the court case to know for sure.
It doesn’t really matter if Microsoft/OpenAI are the only ones with the underlying technology as long as the only economically feasible way to deploy the tech at scale is to rely on one of the big 3 cloud providers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft). The profits still accrue to them, whether we use a larger/inflexible or smaller/flexible model to power the AI - the most effective/common/economical way for businesses to leverage it will be as an AWS service or something similar.
Are you saying you’re cool with neofeudalism? Or just agreeing that this is yet another inevitable (albeit lamentable) step towards it?
Fair enough, but the short term track we’re on is still a hellish dystopia. For the societal damage I’m worried about to happen, we don’t really need AGI as you are probably defining it. If we use the OpenAI definition for AGI, “systems that surpass human capabilities in a majority of economically valuable tasks”, I’d argue that the technology we have today is practically there already. The only thing holding back the dystopia is that corporate America hasn’t fully adapted to the new paradigm.
Imagine a future where most fast food jobs have been replaced by AI-powered kiosks and drive-thrus.
Imagine a future where most customer service jobs have been replaced by AI-powered video chat kiosks.
Imagine a future where most artistic commission work is completed by algorithms.
Imagine a future where all the news and advertising you read or watch is generated specifically to appeal to you by algorithms.
In this future, are the benefits of this technology shared equitably so that the people who used to do these jobs can enjoy their newfound leisure time? Or will those folks live in poverty while the majority of their incomes are siphoned off to the small fraction of the populace which are MS investors?
I think we all know the answer to that one.
Did you read the article? X is alleging that media matters had to manipulate their platform in order for it to generate these ads next to the hateful accounts. According to their records, those ads only appeared one time, for the user account associated with Media Matters. This supports their theory that manipulation was required.
I guess we’ll have to wait for the court case to find out who’s right. But immediately assuming the X lawsuit has no merits just because you don’t like Elon Musk is a bit disingenuous.
I believe one of the worst possible timelines for the average human is one where for-profit capitalist entities control access to AGI and horde all the benefits accrued from it. OpenAI was founded specifically to avoid this - with a complicated governance structure designed to ensure true AGI would end up owned by humanity with the benefits shared by all.
The OpenAI board and top researchers made a desperate bid to prioritize safety over profits, and even with that elaborate governance structure behind them capitalism still seems to have found a way to fuck us.
Today we saw Satya Nadella and Sam Altman steer humanity further from a possible utopia and closer to… Cyberpunk 2077.
Good luck everyone!
Good for MS, bad for humanity. I believe one of the worst possible timelines for the average human is one where for-profit capitalist entities control access to AGI and horde all the benefits accrued from it. OpenAI was founded specifically to avoid this - with a complicated governance structure designed to ensure true AGI would end up owned by humanity with the benefits shared by all.
The OpenAI board and top researchers made a desperate bid to prioritize safety over profits, and even with that elaborate governance structure behind them capitalism still seems to have found a way to fuck us.
Today we saw Satya Nadella and Sam Altman steer humanity further from a possible utopia and closer to… Cyberpunk 2077.
Good luck everyone!
Thereby proving everything the board feared about him. Good riddance.
I’ve had Google Play Music (and YouTube Premium as a freebie) since it launched at $7.99 per month. Folks like me who were grandfathered in at that price just got an increase to $13.99, which forced me to cancel. I can’t afford restaurants or takeout anymore with inflation as bad as it is, and I guess I can’t afford YouTube either.
Just because ‘Statement A’ implies ‘Implication B’ does not make ‘Statement A’ any less true.
If you receive 1% of your overall funding from one organization, that’s a close formal association. It doesn’t automatically mean their reporting is compromised or anything else you might assume comes along with that tag, but that tag is definitely accurate in this case.
Hard disagree. If you receive 1% of your overall funding from one organization, that’s a close formal association. It doesn’t automatically mean their reporting is compromised or anything else you might assume comes along with that tag, but it definitely does apply in this case.
Twitter didn’t say they had government appointed staff. They said they were “state affiliated”. Which you just confirmed as 100% true.
Not only does this bill not have anything to do with searches or seizures by the government, it goes out of its way not to require cloud providers to perform any searches of their own. Where are you seeing a 4th amendment violation?
Except there are specific exclusions in the bill to address this. Hell, the three paragraphs before the one mentioning “deliberately blinding” are all dedicated to explaining why it doesn’t apply to end-to-end encryption.
The only way you could think this bill targets end-to-end encryption is if you only read the terrible headline and didn’t bother to read the actual bill. Before you freak out about paragraph 4, be sure to look at paragraphs 1-3.
What is it? Any context about why I should care that you might be willing to include?
@whofearsthenight
No doubt - the advertisers are 100% right to pull out. I was only answering the original commenter that asked how the MM report could be considered defamatory. I definitely didn’t intend to come across as a Musk apologist.