3 ms·
The Professor is in a good position to (decide if to) sue somebody. From the headlines I thought that's what this is about, because otherwise the headline shoul
by posterboy 4y ago
The Professor is in a good position to (decide if to) sue somebody. From the headlines I thought that's what this is about, because otherwise the headline should suffice with Professor minus "Law".
Of course there is precedent eg. with Techno Viking, a "meme" which is also difficult to attribute to a single person (but each individual hoster who neglects the man's rights).
That's not new, but that it generates news "because AI" is not surprising. People just need reminded that people oughta be reponsible. The issue is broader because incomprehensible neural networks are also used in eg. thread recognition. So employers may be worried about accountability, how much manual verification is needed.
Of course this too is nothing new, since all kinds of software has security holes buried under layers of complexity.
You might simply be under the missapprehension that news means new: »Meaning "tidings, intelligence of something that has lately taken place" is from early 15c.« (etymonline). It fits that the root of the word is probably related to "now". In Latin, whence the English word was loaned as a calque of nova, there is another word nuntius "messenger, message", which isn't even derived directly from novus. Surely this is not a supernova to you. Talk about recurrent networks, eh.
Just saying, as it were, the news item flared up because many many people have taken notice of problems that we barely understand.
- moate 4y agoI'll just say this, if a political law professor who makes a substantial income from thinkpieces and talking head segments had a legitimate case to take on his political opponents ("liberal technologists" in this case as the fearmongering at the end of his article indicates) and was actually in a good position to sue someone, they would. This is not like the Technoviking, as that was about image rights and not slanderous copy, and ChatGPT isn't publishing anything that it (or its creators) alleges are exclusively facts. This is closer to 1st amendment protections around satire as the Chat GPT page says itself the software is in a "research phase". Once the assumption is placed that this is a source of objectively factual information (like say, a newspaper) THEN you have grounds, but this is a pretty weak defamation argument. He's not in a place to sue, so he's writing a blog post about how he hates liberal censorship, and since AI is a hot new trend, he included it. This is a mixture of buzzfeed-esque hyperbolic clickbait titling, and classic "this new technology will get interest" article building. There are 2 problems being mentioned in this article: Misinformation, and Censorship. We understand both very well, there's just a million opinions on them and many conflict in both cause and course of action. Finally, this is "news" because it presents a common problem in society: Policy and political interests bumping against new technology they don't understand and can barely describe in function. This man is still a fucking clownshow (IMHO, so as to not be sued for libel).
- posterboy 4y ago> This is not like the Technoviking, as that was about image rights and not slanderous copy Same thing, name rights, as long as its identifiable.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]