3 ms·

Banking. The energy sector. Mining. Chemical industries.

by jacquesm 20d ago

teagee 20d ago
Wouldn’t the equivalent in chemical be like Exxon having a blog post of their most damaging oil spills?
- bamboozled 20d ago
  Yup, this is and a blog post outlining how dangerous climate change is and how they need to be regulated immediately to stop global extinction.
  - no-name-here 20d ago
    “This is big oil pushing the climate hoax to spur regulation and prevent the impede upstarts from installing an oil rig on their own land!”
  - runarberg 20d ago
    I think there is a major difference in that climate change is real, while AI companies are constantly hampering on about a threat which is basically just science fiction. It would be like if Exxon was constantly warning about oil drilling opening up a portal which would unleash monsters with 10% chance of killing all humans. AI companies are still very silent about the actual risks of their products. That this is addictive, that it causes atrophy, that its usage among children is bad for their education, that in worst cases it psychosis, and is often used to harm others and for criminal activities. This reminds me of the behavior of cigarette companies. Except instead of only staying silent on the risks of their products (and funding pseudo-scientific studies to muddy the waters) they invent risks which do not exist. And then use these stories as evidence for these made up risks. In the non-AI world this is called consumer hostile behavior, but in AI the fact that their products are faulty, and unsafe, is called misalignment.
    - strange_quark 20d ago
      Our fracking activity is causing the tap water to catch on fire, causing small earthquakes, and killing all the wildlife, so you (government) better stop us. But we can't stop because if we do, China might open up the hell portal first!
      - nativeit 20d ago
        I think I heard that we’ll be fracking with nuclear materials soon so we can harvest the tritium water as a byproduct. Does anyone know if that’s just a wild, stupid theory that will never work, or an actual idea being explored? Sounds horrifying.
      - bouncing_bolete 18d ago
        Issue is that other corps play by the same rules. If those corps are willing to stoop to immoral means and not get punished for it (they don't), the upstanding players are going to get outcompeted
- nativeit 20d ago
  Recycling plastics is a huge lie that’s caused society to perform rituals that absolve them of the horrible impact they’re inflicting on the planet. I don’t think this kind of gaslighting is unique or new, but the AI company’s specific melange of fear-mongering, disingenuous helplessness, ethics-washing, with a handy wildcard of regulatory capture is perhaps uniquely optimized and (so far) effective.
paimapi 20d ago
Big Agriculture (eg subsidies, dereg). Car manufacturers. Healthcare insurance (or insurance of any stripe when it comes to natural disasters and over-insuring and then needing bail outs). It's almost like avoiding accountability for the sake of the share value is a systemic problem encouraged by the way we have currently arranged ourselves
- bamboozled 20d ago
  Sorry, are you saying car companies begged to be regulated for safety , or they just followed guidelines and improved the safety of their cars without writing articles about how dangerous cars are and they should be taken off the road ?
  - paimapi 20d ago
    ah it's always a lovely day to drop some historical reference points https://www.fastcompany.com/90781961/how-automakers-insidiously-shaped-our-cities-for-cars https://www.fastcompany.com/90781961/how-automakers-insidiou... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_city
    - bamboozled 19d ago
      ah, I fail to see the parallels ?
      - paimapi 19d ago
        maybe more explicitly this one: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history “In the 1920s, auto groups redefined who owned the city street. It was [originally the] drivers’ job to avoid you, not your job to avoid them,” says Peter Norton, a historian at the University of Virginia and author of Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. “But under the new model, streets became a place for cars — and as a pedestrian, it’s your fault if you get hit.” ie under the banner of "pedestrian safety" that was illustrated by numerous examples of grisly accidents, automobile manufacturing lobbyists pushed jay-walking laws and essentially took all city streets away from pedestrian use, entrenching reliance on cars for transportation and urban design to match the idea here was to portray cars as inevitable, necessary things that were going to kill people anyway (just like how AI is inevitably going to lead to mass security breaches) and really it's the pedestrian's (or the maintainer's) job to avoid being harmed

Banking. The energy sector. Mining. Chemical industries.

teagee 20d ago

Wouldn’t the equivalent in chemical be like Exxon having a blog post of their most damaging oil spills?

bamboozled 20d ago
Yup, this is and a blog post outlining how dangerous climate change is and how they need to be regulated immediately to stop global extinction.
- no-name-here 20d ago
  “This is big oil pushing the climate hoax to spur regulation and prevent the impede upstarts from installing an oil rig on their own land!”
- runarberg 20d ago
  I think there is a major difference in that climate change is real, while AI companies are constantly hampering on about a threat which is basically just science fiction. It would be like if Exxon was constantly warning about oil drilling opening up a portal which would unleash monsters with 10% chance of killing all humans. AI companies are still very silent about the actual risks of their products. That this is addictive, that it causes atrophy, that its usage among children is bad for their education, that in worst cases it psychosis, and is often used to harm others and for criminal activities. This reminds me of the behavior of cigarette companies. Except instead of only staying silent on the risks of their products (and funding pseudo-scientific studies to muddy the waters) they invent risks which do not exist. And then use these stories as evidence for these made up risks. In the non-AI world this is called consumer hostile behavior, but in AI the fact that their products are faulty, and unsafe, is called misalignment.
  - strange_quark 20d ago
    Our fracking activity is causing the tap water to catch on fire, causing small earthquakes, and killing all the wildlife, so you (government) better stop us. But we can't stop because if we do, China might open up the hell portal first!
    - nativeit 20d ago
      I think I heard that we’ll be fracking with nuclear materials soon so we can harvest the tritium water as a byproduct. Does anyone know if that’s just a wild, stupid theory that will never work, or an actual idea being explored? Sounds horrifying.
    - bouncing_bolete 18d ago
      Issue is that other corps play by the same rules. If those corps are willing to stoop to immoral means and not get punished for it (they don't), the upstanding players are going to get outcompeted
nativeit 20d ago
Recycling plastics is a huge lie that’s caused society to perform rituals that absolve them of the horrible impact they’re inflicting on the planet. I don’t think this kind of gaslighting is unique or new, but the AI company’s specific melange of fear-mongering, disingenuous helplessness, ethics-washing, with a handy wildcard of regulatory capture is perhaps uniquely optimized and (so far) effective.

paimapi 20d ago

Big Agriculture (eg subsidies, dereg). Car manufacturers. Healthcare insurance (or insurance of any stripe when it comes to natural disasters and over-insuring and then needing bail outs). It's almost like avoiding accountability for the sake of the share value is a systemic problem encouraged by the way we have currently arranged ourselves

bamboozled 20d ago
Sorry, are you saying car companies begged to be regulated for safety , or they just followed guidelines and improved the safety of their cars without writing articles about how dangerous cars are and they should be taken off the road ?
- paimapi 20d ago
  ah it's always a lovely day to drop some historical reference points https://www.fastcompany.com/90781961/how-automakers-insidiously-shaped-our-cities-for-cars https://www.fastcompany.com/90781961/how-automakers-insidiou... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_city
  - bamboozled 19d ago
    ah, I fail to see the parallels ?
    - paimapi 19d ago
      maybe more explicitly this one: https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history “In the 1920s, auto groups redefined who owned the city street. It was [originally the] drivers’ job to avoid you, not your job to avoid them,” says Peter Norton, a historian at the University of Virginia and author of Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. “But under the new model, streets became a place for cars — and as a pedestrian, it’s your fault if you get hit.” ie under the banner of "pedestrian safety" that was illustrated by numerous examples of grisly accidents, automobile manufacturing lobbyists pushed jay-walking laws and essentially took all city streets away from pedestrian use, entrenching reliance on cars for transportation and urban design to match the idea here was to portray cars as inevitable, necessary things that were going to kill people anyway (just like how AI is inevitably going to lead to mass security breaches) and really it's the pedestrian's (or the maintainer's) job to avoid being harmed