3 ms·
> This is how we’ve managed security on our social networks – our more robust AI systems identify and stop threats from less sophisticated actors who often use
by kart23 2y ago
> This is how we’ve managed security on our social networks – our more robust AI systems identify and stop threats from less sophisticated actors who often use smaller scale AI systems.
Ok, first of all, has this really worked? AI moderators still can't capture the mass of obvious spam/bots on all their platforms, threads included. Second, AI detection doesn't work, and with how much better the systems are getting, it's probably never going to, unless you keep the best models for yourself, and it's is clear from the rest of the note that its not zuck's intention to do so.
> As long as everyone has access to similar generations of models – which open source promotes – then governments and institutions with more compute resources will be able to check bad actors with less compute.
This just doesn't make sense. How are you going to prevent AI spam, AI deepfakes from causing harm with more compute? What are you gonna do with more compute about nonconsensual deepfakes? People are already using AI to bypass identity verification on your social media networks, and pump out loads of spam.
- OpenComment 2y agoInteresting quotes. Less sophisticated actors just means humans who already write in 2020 what the NYT wrote in early 2022 to prepare for Biden's State Of The Union 180° policy reversals (manufacturing consent). FB was notorious for censorship. Anyway, what is with the "actions/actors" terminology? This is straightforward totalitarian language.
- simonw 2y ago"AI detection doesn't work, and with how much better the systems are getting, it's probably never going to, unless you keep the best models for yourself" I don't think that's true. I don't think even the best privately held models will be able to detect AI text reliably enough for that to be worthwhile.
- zmmmmm 2y agoI found this dubious as well, especially how it is portrayed as a simple game of compute power. For a start, there is an enormous asymmetry which is why we have a spam problem in the first place. For example a single bot can send out millions of emails at almost no cost and we have to expend a lot more "energy" to classify each one and decide if it's spam or not. So you don't just need more compute power you need drastically more compute power, and as AI models improve and get refined, the operation at ten times the scale is probably going to be marginally better, not orders of magnitude better. I still agree with his general take - bad actors will get these models or make them themselves, you can't stop it. But the logic about compute power is odd.