This kind of headline always makes it sound like AI is being used as judge, jury, and executioner. But it’s more likely that it’s part of narrowing the field or generating candidates.

I’m reminded of another headline recently about how AI is now going to be used at a nuclear reactor. Everyone assumed this meant that ChatGPT would henceforth operate the entire reactor including having the ability to cause meltdowns. It turned out to be that the employees were getting an AI powered document search for their office that would help them search regulatory and technical documents.

We need to remain skeptical of AI, but this hardon for Skynet everywhere is not actually helping with that. That’s more emotional catharsis, 2-minutes hate, than effective skepticism.

No one cares when you bought. You’re supposed to flood the used Tesla market to suppress new sales happening NOW.

I’ve heard a lot of excuses from Tesla drivers about how they can’t afford to stand for their ethics. It’s pathetic. How are we to believe this from anyone who could afford one in the first place?

Plot yourself on the historical spectrum of “what was I willing to give up for my ideals” and that brave moral stand about not having a car payment looks pretty fucking limp.

I have empathy for you. I’m just more concerns with your soul than your car payment.

It’s very hard to actually get a company broken up and I can’t remember ever seeing it happen. But when your antitrust case is judged against you, they don’t just charge you a fine and say “on your way now.”

All predictions in this vein are invalid.

If you want to say “even this little bit is unsettling and we should be on guard for more,” fine.

That’s different from “if you think this is only a small amount you are wrong because a small amount will become a large amount.”

You may think it’s as plausible as you like. Obviously you do or you wouldn’t have said it. It’s still by definition absolutely a slippery slope logical fallacy. A little will always lead to more, therefore a little is a lot. This is textbook. It has nothing to do with companies, computers, or goats.

That’s textbook slippery slope logical fallacy.

It’s literally just a document search for their internal employees to use.

Those employees are fallible humans trying to navigate tens of thousands of byzantine technical and regulatory documents all published on various dinosaur platforms.

AI hallucination is a very popular thing to get outraged about right now but don’t forget about good old fashioned bureaucratic error.

My employer implemented AI search/summarization of our docs/wiki/intranet/JIRA systems over a year ago and it has been very effective in my experience. It always links to the source docs, but it permits natural language queries and can do some reasoning about the contents of the documents to pull together information across a sea of text.

Nothing that is mission critical enough to lead to a reactor meltdown should ever be blindly trusted to these tools.

But nothing like that should ever be trusted to the whims of one fallible human, either. This is why systems have protocols, checks and balances, quality controls, and failsafes.

Giving employees a more powerful document search doesn’t somehow sweep all that aside.

But hey, don’t let a rational, down-to-earth argument stand in the way of freaking out about a sci-fi dystopia.

I can’t imagine what it is like for bereaved parents who have recently lost a child. Or for those struggling with fertility issues.

Don’t dress up your petty annoyance at having to share a world with parents as saving the bereaved and barren.

He says it so many times in so many ways that he actually starts to make it seem more complex than it is. You start wondering if you’re missing something, because you got it in 6 seconds but 12 minutes later he’s still talking about it.

Yes it solves it. Companies are not required to carry your voice around the world, which is what their platforms do. Stop equating guaranteed amplification with your freedom of speech. It’s wrong and dumb. I’ve lived in countries that actually restrict speech and whatever the Facebook mod did to you is NOTHING. The only reason Americans even fall into this stupid way of thinking is because their speech is so free. When your speech has never truly been restricted you have no idea what that freedom even means.

The state deciding on speech is a red line yes but that’s not even on the table here. This is about social media moderation. It actually seems really suspiciously disingenuous to bring that up here.

OP: Thread about social media moderation

You: The state deciding what’s true is the death of free speech!

Actually your comment is one of the big problems in this debate. People can’t tell the difference between a private social media firm moderating hate content and the government taking away their freedom of speech. You just slurred the two together yourself by bringing this up here.

Well, here’s how that was framed for participants of this study:

identified as misinformation based on a bipartisan fact check

And even with this, Republicans didn’t care if it was true or not.

We’re actually past the point of anyone being able to be considered truthful by Republicans. It either tickles their feelings right or it doesn’t and that is all.