> The only tools and technologies that will be described as “AI” will be recent, commercial, large-scale generative AI systems built around LLMs, mostly those w

> The only tools and technologies that will be described as “AI” will be recent, commercial, large-scale generative AI systems built around LLMs, mostly those where Sam Altman and Bill Gates have a direct financial interest. > The intentional blurring of lines around the definition of “AI” — encompassing everything from improving lighting in camera phone photos to drone targeting for missile strikes — will be ignored as if it’s an unimportant consideration. These are a bit odd to see in the same list. > no discussion of public models of ownership or control of AI technologies Is this talking about the ability to run models locally, or about government restrictions on permitted models? From his association with the EFF I'd think the former, but reading it gives more of a feeling of the latter. > repeated attacks on labor that have been systematically funded as “tech innovation” in recent years, What exactly is Total Factor Productivity, anyway, and what's the mechanism behind how technology leads to economic growth? > not one voice representing labor will be quoted Really? That's be like discussing the social impact of automated looms without mentioning Mr. Ludd. Seems quite the oversight to preemptively accused someone of without evidence. > fact that young workers are adopting labor organizing faster than they’re adopting AI. That sounds interesting enough to want a link for. > The word “consent” will never be mentioned, let alone the concept, when it comes to training data and surveillance data used to build large-scale models The justifications I've seen for demanding that model training on public data require consent seen to be less about "having 'your' data included will harm you in particular in ways that data from other people won't" and more about "these models are bad in general and here's a good way to obstruct them". > Errors, confabulations, and intentional lies and distortions produced by generative AI products will not be described as bugs or defects, but by the false marketing term of “hallucinations”, with no mention of any legal or moral obligation to make commercial software that functions in reliable ways. Calling these things "hallucinations" is (usually - there are exceptions like the early intentional nonsense from Google Gemini when it first started doing images) less inaccurate than the terms he's asking to use. Also if you're building something with accuracy requirements there are long-standing techniques for building reliable systems out of components that are unreliable in various ways. > There will be no mention of the fact that large learning models are being used as a method of determining who gets killed in military (and militarized policing) engagements today What is this referring to? > or how “the AI makes the decision” is a tool for avoiding accountability Um, "computer says no" isn't new and isn't specific to AI. > Not one person who has had a loved one targeted for sentencing, violence or death will be quoted or spoken to in any context. What is this referring to? > In short, Oprah is making a commercial for some AI vendors, without disclosing whether she has any financial interest This is quite a statement to make about a specific individual with no evidence whatsoever.