Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   JP (jplebreton@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 08-Aug-2024 21:16:13 JST JP

   in reply to

   • tante

   @tante it's yet another case of tech insisting they be judged on their potential not on their actual accomplishments; their lack of further progress becomes the regulators' fault. very convenient device for them.
   and of course the openly reactionary tech guys insist "we'd have AGI computer god by now if you just let us make 'not-woke' AI, ie letting it say all the slurs and conspiracy drivel in its training data"

   • Embed this notice
     tante (tante@tldr.nettime.org)'s status on Thursday, 08-Aug-2024 21:16:14 JST tante

     Complaints about how some regulation on #AI might "slow down innovation" are a bit weird.
     Sure maybe but the pace of innovation isn't a priority in how to structure a society and legal environment: It's about protecting _people's_ rights, wellbeing and thriving, about protecting the ecological, social and political environment that society rests on. Innovation is so far down the list that I wouldn't even have time to scroll down that far.

     So yeah, if "you as developer of an #AI system will be responsible to a certain degree for abuse it's used for" is a problem for you, maybe do something useful with your time. Because of course you should be responsible for the tools you put out into the world and the affordances that they come with or the mitigations they lack. Grow up for fuck's sake.

     (sparked by Fei-Fei Li's bad take in Fortune Magazine: https://fortune.com/2024/08/06/godmother-of-ai-says-californias-ai-bill-will-harm-us-ecosystem-tech-politics/ )

     pettter repeated this.