OpenAI just admitted it can’t identify AI-generated text. That’s bad for the internet and it could be really bad for AI models.::In January, OpenAI launched a system for identifying AI-generated text. This month, the company scrapped it.

  • mimichuu_@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    What are you on about? Who’s talking about “completely getting rid of AI”? And you accuse me of strawmanning? I didn’t even argue that it should be stopped. I argued that every single time anyone tries or suggests doing anything to curtail these things people like you jump out to vehemently defend your precious programs from regulation or even just criticism, because we should either completely destroy capitalism or not do anything at all, there is no inbetween, there is nothing we can do to help anyone if it’s not that.

    Except there is. There are plenty of things that can be done to help the common people besides telling them “well just tough it out until we someday magically change the fundamentals of the economic system of the entire world, nerd”. It just would involve restricting what these things can do. And you don’t want that. It’s fine but own up to it. Trying to have this image that you really do care about helping but just don’t want to help at all unless it’s via an incredibly unprobable miracle pisses me off.

    false information? already a problem without A.I. always has been. media control, paid propagandists etc. if anything, A.I. might encourage the main population to learn what critical thought is. it’s still just as bad if you get rid of A.I.

    For someone who accuses others of not understanding how AI works, to then say something like this is absurd. I hope you’re being intellectually dishonest and not just that naive. There is absolutely no comparison between a paid propagandist and the irrecognizable replicas of real things you could fabricate with AI.

    People are already abusing voice actors by sampling them and making covers with their voices without their permission and certainly without paying. We can already make amateur videos of the person speaking to pair it up with the generated audio. In a few years when the technology innevitably gets better I will be able to perfectly fabricate a video that can ruin someone’s life with a few clicks. If this process is sophisticated enough there will be minimal points of failure, there will be almost nothing to investigate and try to figure out if the video is false or not. No evidence will ever mean anything, it could all be fabricated. If you don’t see how this is considerably worse than ANYTHING we have right now to falsify information, then there is nothing I can say to ever convince you. “Oh, but if nothing can be demonstrably true anymore, the masses will learn critical thought!” Sure.

    say you succeed. A.I. is gone. nothing has changed. inequality is still getting worse and everything is terrible. congratulations! you managed to prevent countless scientific discoveries that could help countless people. congrats, the blind and deaf lose their potential assistants. the physically challenged lose potential house-helpers. etc.

    This is what I mean. You people lack any kind of nuance. You can only work in this “all or nothing” thinking. No “anti-AI” person wants to fully and completely destroy every single machine and program powered by artificial intelligence, jesus christ. It’s almost like it’s an incredibly versatile tool that has many uses that can be used for good and bad, It’s almost like we should, call me an irrational emotional snowflake if you want, put regulations in place so the bad uses are heavily restricted, so we can live with this incredible technology without feeling constantly under threat because we are using it responsibly.

    Instead what you propose is, don’t you dare limit anything, open the flood gates and let’s instead change the economic system so that the harmful don’t also destroy people economically. Except the changes you want not only don’t fix some of the problems unregulated and free AI use for everything bring, they go against the interests of every single person with power in this system, so they have an incredibly minuscule chance of ever being close to happening, much less happening peacefully. I’d be okay if it was your ultimate goal, but if you’re not willing to have a compromise on something that could minimize the harm this is doing in the meantime without being a perfect solution, why shouldn’t I assume you just don’t care? What reasons are you giving me to not believe that you simply prefer seeing the advancements of technology rather than the security of your fellow humans, and you’re just saying this as an excuse to keep it that way?

    on top of that, we lose the biggest argument for socializing the economy going forward, through massive automation that can’t be ignored or denied while we demand a fair economy.

    Right, because that’s the way to socialize the economy. By having a really good argument. I’m sure it will convince the people that have unmeasurable amounts of wealth and power precisely because the economy is not socialized. It will be so convincing they will willingly give all of that up.

    • Peanut
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      then what the fuck are you even arguing? i never said “we should do NO regulation!” my criticism was against blaming A.I. for things that aren’t problems created by A.I.

      i said “you have given no argument against A.I. currently that doesn’t boil down to “the actual problem is unsolvable, so get rid of all automation and technology!” when addressed.”

      because you haven’t made a cohesive point towards anything i’ve specifically said this entire fucking time.

      are you just instigating debate for… a completely unrelated thing to anything i said in the first place? you just wanted to be argumentative and pissy?

      i was addressing the general anti-A.I. stance that is heavily pushed in media right now, which is generally unfounded and unreasonable.

      I.E. addressing op’s article with “Existing datasets still exist. The bigger focus is in crossing modalities and refining content.” i’m saying there is a lot of UNREASONABLE flak towards A.I. you freaked out at that? who’s the one with no nuance?

      your entire response structure is just… for the sake of creating your own argument instead of actually addressing my main concern of unreasonable bias and push against the general concept of A.I. as a whole.

      i’m not continuing with you because you are just making your own argument and being aggressive.

      I never said “we can’t have any regulation”

      i even specifically said " i have advocated for particular A.I. tools to get much more regulation for over 5-10 years. how long have you been addressing the issue?"

      jesus christ you are just an angry accusatory ball of sloppy opinions.

      maybe try a conversation next time instead of aggressively wasting people’s time.

      • mimichuu_@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        my criticism was against blaming A.I. for things that aren’t problems created by A.I.

        So, like, everything? I’ve talked about the problems and shit AI will cause on us and your only response consistantly was “Yeahhhh but if we completely ban my precious AI then we wont have all of it’s nice things! Better to wait until capitalism is magically solved”. Then the problems that weren’t economics-related you handwaved away. Please illuminate me on a problem you think is real, caused by AI, and that you would be willing to regulate within the bounds of our current system?

        because you haven’t made a cohesive point towards anything i’ve specifically said this entire fucking time.

        I’ve argued against your mentality and the mentality of the people that always show up on posts concerned about AI to defend it. I’ve even responded to specific phrases you said. What else do you even want?

        my main concern of unreasonable bias and push against the general concept of A.I. as a whole.

        If you don’t want people to feel threatened by AI, maybe be willing to fix its threats? Maybe don’t just go to something people find concerning and say “we can’t dare to do anything about this!” and try to reframe it as some sort of tragic prevention by the ignorant masses?

        i even specifically said " i have advocated for particular A.I. tools to get much more regulation for over 5-10 years. how long have you been addressing the issue?"

        That means nothing to me. Those are just words. Your actions have been vehemently defending AI and trying to convince me that curtailing it is pointless, while also trying to appear concerned about its threats. Those are completely contradictory positions that you held now, and that’s what I pointed out. I don’t care what you have been doing for years.

        jesus christ you are just an angry accusatory ball of sloppy opinions. maybe try a conversation next time instead of aggressively wasting people’s time.

        When have I ever obbligated you to respond to me? I’ve never hidden that this topic and people who think like you make me angry. If you didn’t want to deal with it you could have just ignored me.

        It does make me angry. It makes me angry to see so many people be threatened so unfairly. It makes me angry to see people not care about that and prefer seeing further sophistication of a thoughtless algorithm over lives, but at least those people are honest. Dishonesty is what makes me livid. Those that have the same attitude but know they’d sound awful if they said it straight forwardly, so they try to find a hip and cool thing to parade as. It’s totally anti-capitalist to not want to stop capitalist corporations abusing workers to replace them bro, trust me.