5 ms·
This reminds me of the scandal where Youtube science channels did glowing paid reviews of Waymo’s self driving cars without acknowledging they were paid for it.
by ummonk 4y ago
This reminds me of the scandal where Youtube science channels did glowing paid reviews of Waymo’s self driving cars without acknowledging they were paid for it. And technooptimists like Scott Alexander or Ray Kurzweil have a common tendency to shift the goalposts and declare they were right with their predictions. Current AI certainly doesn’t demonstrate proto-AGI capabilities.
That said, we shouldn’t miss the forest for the trees. We can be skeptical that current The pace of AI progress has been immense and problems that previously seemed difficult (e.g. computer vision classification, or beating top players at Go) have fallen one by one. And AI-skepticism’s have themselves been moving the goalposts in response. I see no reason why composition won’t be the same with time. Indeed, a decade ago machine translation used to struggle to understand the relationships between things, but now seems to be reliable at preserving the compositional relationships post-translation. 2029 is rather optimistic, but AGI does seem to be approaching in the coming few decades.
- grandmczeb 4y ago> Youtube science channels did glowing paid reviews of Waymo’s self driving cars without acknowledging they were paid for it. Which video is this a reference to?
- ummonk 4y agoVeritasium's video in particular: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjztvddhZmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjztvddhZmI It was critiqued by Tom Nicholas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM0aohBfUTc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM0aohBfUTc Most notable was Snazzy Labs' own comment in the replies to Tom Nicholas' video which descriped their experience participating in the Waymo sponsored reviews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM0aohBfUTc&lc=UgxJvOq1zHhIDE-3LRZ4AaABAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM0aohBfUTc&lc=UgxJvOq1zHhID...
- grandmczeb 4y agoThe sibling comment already mentioned that video has clear markings that it was sponsored.
- ummonk 4y agoThe issue is lack of transparency over the amount of editorial influence that Waymo exercised. This is why I linked to Snazzy Labs' comment about their experience making one of the other Waymo-sponsored videos.
- grandmczeb 4y agoI genuinely don’t understand the issue. If you see the word “sponsored” you should assume editorial control unless there’s an explicit statement otherwise. That’s what it’s there for.
- WastingMyTime89 4y agoMost YouTubers constantly play fast and loose with what is and isn’t sponsored content and what it means for their editorial integrity or full stop integrity for what it’s worth - a commodity in shockingly short supply amongst modern content providers but what my culture would consider okay is significantly at odd with American culture when it comes to commercial interests. Some will gladly view themselves alternatively as maker of educational content or entertainer as it suits them.
- dmix 4y agoIs there another example besides the Veritasium one (considering they both say it's sponsored in the video and in the description)? > This reminds me of the scandal where Youtube science channels did glowing paid reviews of Waymo’s self driving cars You mention channel(s)
- philipwhiuk 4y agoHuh I'm glad it wasn't just me - I was pretty negative at the time: https://twitter.com/philipwhiuk/status/1418582165718192131 https://twitter.com/philipwhiuk/status/1418582165718192131
- jeffbee 4y agoIf you are referring to Veritasium's Waymo video, it says it is sponsored content in the description above the fold and it has the standard paid promotion notice right on top of the video as soon as you open it. As far as I can tell the "controversy" over the video is merely that one dedicated critic - so dedicated he made an hour-long response to a 20-minute video - is committed to the idea that machines won't ever be able to drive, and is irrationally angry over the fact that machines can and do drive, and do it well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjztvddhZmI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjztvddhZmI
- mgoetzke 4y agoI wish videos like these would say sponsored by the company that makes the product reviewed here. Instead of the generic sponsored because I also talk about matresses in this tech review
- emmelaich 4y agoThat's a pretty strong claim about Scott Alexander. Do you have an example of him shifting the goalposts?
- elcomet 4y agoThis very article is an example right ? He changed the prompt but declared it a win
- emmelaich 4y ago1. it's disputed 2. the assertion is that he has "common tendency to shift the goalposts" The emphasis on common is mine.
- elcomet 4y agoI think changing the terms of the bet is definitely shifting the goalpost, even if not by much. It is certainly enough for the other party to refuse the win.
- ummonk 4y agoI meant that the tendency is common in techo-optimists, not that Scott Alexander commonly exhibits it. Sorry for the ambiguity.
- nohat 4y agoI agree that declaring a win is a bit impolite _if_ the other person hasn't agreed. But changing "farmer" to "robot farmer" because Google won't allow him to generate pictures with humans is obviously not changing the goalposts in the usual meaning of the term.
- ummonk 4y agoClaiming the generated art is an image of a robot farmer because it's wearing a little hat is definitely changing the goalposts.
- 4y ago
- Kamq 4y agoI wouldn't call Scott Alexander a techno-optimist given that space's (the LessWrong diaspora) whole focus on AI risk.
- albntomat0 4y agoMaybe Less Wrong et al arent optimists in that strong AI will be good, but the AI risk field seems optimistic that strong AI is possible.
- Kamq 4y agoAhh, in that sense. Fair enough, I hadn't interpreted optimistic in that manner.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- adamsmith143 4y ago>Current AI certainly doesn’t demonstrate proto-AGI capabilities. This seems like a subjective claim.