3 ms·

i would disagree. i thjnk the safety concerns and conversations from the companies serving AI services are misguided simply because the companies know what they

by csydas 3y ago

i would disagree. i thjnk the safety concerns and conversations from the companies serving AI services are misguided simply because the companies know what they want to do with it (advertising based on user data and input) but they have no idea how to accurately predict all the unexpected or undesired responses from the AIs. they know there is likely some potential revenue there but they aren’t sure how to make the AI comply with regulations. they already have processes for manipulating results and have a trained and likely tagged data set of “bad” things the AI shouldn’t return. if they don’t want the ai telling how to do illegal stuff they will just not include that in its dataset. if the ai “learns” this, that’s responsibility of the user likely in the clause. they will simply document how it was trained and true expected results, add clause on “if you don’t wanna see disturbing responses don’t ask disturbing questions for it to find he answer to”, and probably it will be enough unless the ai gets really combative and destructive. i really don’t thjnk this about safety at all, it’s trying to seed the idea that the ai companies are at all concerned about violating existing privacy regulations that Meta et. al. already are bumping against. obviously it’s supposition but i thjnk this is far likelier what they’re worried on and what all this “safety” talk is about. they just want plausible deniability to be seeded before the first lawsuits come.

corethree 3y ago
Right. You and I are in agreement. Read my post carefully. I stated that it's all about liability. That's the only reason why they care.
- csydas 3y ago
  I think there are elements we agree on (liability), but I don't think it's about any real safety concern or anything beyond just "we are not sure we cannot break the law on privacy and data collection/advertising with our AI...so we are going to pretend we are trying", and this just seems like it's Meta just stopping the pretending, but naturally just my opinion which is open to change. that's more my point, but yes, I can see that maybe I came off as too disagreeable edit: In other words, my contention with Meta's statements and your analysis is mostly that I don't really think "safety" is Meta's concern -- the knife analogy I think isn't even necessary (the models are already neutered in this regard as I see it), I think instead it's that they likely know the models will violate many regulations and also privacy laws, and they're trying to seed the idea that they built their AI implementation responsibly and any violation is just a "hallucination". It would be great if a reporter truly took meta to task on what they mean by safety and what specifically they are trying to protect people from; I have little hope this will happen.
  - corethree 3y ago
    >but I don't think it's about any real safety concern or anything beyond just "we are not sure we cannot break the law on privacy and data collection/advertising with our AI...so we are going to pretend we are trying", and this just seems like it's Meta just stopping the pretending, but naturally just my opinion which is open to change. Read more carefully. I literally said Meta does not give a shit. We are in agreement on this. The difference between us, is I don't give a shit either. I agree with metas hidden stance on this.
    - csydas 3y ago
      yes but what i’m saying is the knife analogy weakens this position imo )) if it’s bullshit (which we agree)i personally find such analogies serve to support the nullshit narrative instead of calling bs on it ). that’s all). i do agree you and i agree though penultimately

by csydas 3y ago

corethree 3y ago

Right. You and I are in agreement. Read my post carefully. I stated that it's all about liability. That's the only reason why they care.

csydas 3y ago
I think there are elements we agree on (liability), but I don't think it's about any real safety concern or anything beyond just "we are not sure we cannot break the law on privacy and data collection/advertising with our AI...so we are going to pretend we are trying", and this just seems like it's Meta just stopping the pretending, but naturally just my opinion which is open to change. that's more my point, but yes, I can see that maybe I came off as too disagreeable edit: In other words, my contention with Meta's statements and your analysis is mostly that I don't really think "safety" is Meta's concern -- the knife analogy I think isn't even necessary (the models are already neutered in this regard as I see it), I think instead it's that they likely know the models will violate many regulations and also privacy laws, and they're trying to seed the idea that they built their AI implementation responsibly and any violation is just a "hallucination". It would be great if a reporter truly took meta to task on what they mean by safety and what specifically they are trying to protect people from; I have little hope this will happen.
- corethree 3y ago
  >but I don't think it's about any real safety concern or anything beyond just "we are not sure we cannot break the law on privacy and data collection/advertising with our AI...so we are going to pretend we are trying", and this just seems like it's Meta just stopping the pretending, but naturally just my opinion which is open to change. Read more carefully. I literally said Meta does not give a shit. We are in agreement on this. The difference between us, is I don't give a shit either. I agree with metas hidden stance on this.
  - csydas 3y ago
    yes but what i’m saying is the knife analogy weakens this position imo )) if it’s bullshit (which we agree)i personally find such analogies serve to support the nullshit narrative instead of calling bs on it ). that’s all). i do agree you and i agree though penultimately