4 ms·
> You’re also mistaken about the scope and reach of GDPR I suspect you're correct, but the point of the original post was, I believe, to link the moral concern
by mst 4y ago
> You’re also mistaken about the scope and reach of GDPR
I suspect you're correct, but the point of the original post was, I believe, to link the moral concerns behind GDPR to moral concerns about language models.
For the record: I personally believe that (a) there is a morality issue here (b) the existence of the relevant technology means there's no going back anyway.
- dahart 4y agoI agree the post was attempting to link moral concerns between AI and GDPR, but I reject the link to AI and language models in this case. I don’t think the link has been clearly established in this case, and it seems like too many assumptions were made. The poster is suggesting that AI should be held to a higher standard than Google and Bing; in effect that AI should be both smarter and more culpable than people. This is giving AI too much credit, anthropomorphizing, and also asking for an unrealistic and maybe dangerous precedent. I’m curious to hear more about what the moral issue is from your perspective. There are legitimate privacy concerns surrounding PII and AI, and surrounding PII and the internet in general. There are legitimate concerns about ways that AI can infer non-public information. There are also legitimate concerns about humanity’s ability to record history and also about the legal and financial liabilities that might come about when recording publicly available information. Those are big general debates and are worthy of attention. This particular case hasn’t convinced me yet, since the PII was knowingly posted, left online for some time, and since the AI is only regurgitating knowledge that Google also has.