Yeah, it’s pretty disappointing given their name.
More like ClosedAI am I rite guyz
More like ClosedAI am I rite guyz
https://artificialintelligence-news.com/2020/10/28/medical-c...
Okay maybe it is indeed very predictable what would happen on 4chan, but I hope you get my point.
Here the AI is just a tool, we shouldn't categorize them as some "special" software.
Not particularly the best comparison, we are talking here about applications and services which we sell and we have to make sure that we have the confidence that we can trust our own systems and the customer can rely on our word and engineering skills. Right now we are still in the primordial soup of AI. As long as we do not have proper methods to verify and certify our models, they are dangerous and unpredictable.
As a summary, generating content isn't new and just increases your moderation load. AI is not something "special". It's just software, at the end.
I don't need to do this discussion, this is basic introductory education and consent in University courses about AI and especially about system engineering verification and certification, which is required for most customers on a large scale and mission critical purposes.
Then why are you on HN, replying to exactly that discussion?
We are not teenagers, I may be wrong, I would be okay with it.
> Here we are specifically talking about probabilistic generative model, which are inherently unsuited for mission critical purposes, as they are engineered right now
In what qualitative way does that differ from any kind of data generation?
You need gun control with bows and arrows, and you still need gun control with machine guns.
That's what I'm saying.
Casually dismissing it with "well it's just extra moderation load" is a mistake, I think.
I still humbly think that it'd still be a cat and mouse game on every side imaginable.
You may argue that this leaves individuals vulnerable (people not being able to discern actual people from chat bots, which was the given example), but in the end, people learn to adapt. They get their own AI assistant to do the job or they keep doing what they did before: Just don't trust anonymous people online. They can be murderers, molesters, terrorists or worse, bots :)
AI doesn't add more danger to the situation, you just need to moderate as usual. If you are using some computer program to add more content to your web site, you will just have more content to moderate. News aggregators do have this problem for example, as sometimes automated crawlers post sensitive content and that needs to be marked & deleted before being published.
Saying, "oh but our algorithm can cause depression, so we moderate the access to it" doesn't make sense, as any content can cause it and needs to be moderated.
That's why content moderation is one of the hardest problems of this age.
You use computers to do it? Computers develop biases. Humans? Same! It's very hard to scale and is a problem only remotely related to AI-generated content because AI generating content increases the input to your moderation system.
Now I hope it is clear what I'm trying to say :)
Objectively yes. Information on correctly peeling a pineapple is ok? Processing chicken to cook it? What about a dog? A rat? Fish? Insects? Is killing millions of bacteria with a single drop of chemical okay? Ways to commit suicide? What if this video is for prevention?
When it comes to moderation, we can't even set a consistent rule set to "deal with it all (c)". We just wing it, and hope it matches the expectations of our majority of our users... and the government(s)! Yeah governments have rules, but they tend to change towards the expectations, and a lot of rules for interpretation. It's a very hard task.
> For that matter, can knowledge exist without bias?
Umm... I don't know what that would mean. Isn't science there to reduce the amount of bias in knowledge? So, maybe, no? We can hope to reduce it, but we cannot get rid of it? At this point I don't really know what I'm talking about to be honest :)
This is not a new issue but is heavily researched in the certifiable AI area. If you just turning million knobs randomly based on an architecture and the biased data you have, of course you don't really known what you are doing.
It can obviously have some effect on the so-called ‘real world’, or people wouldn’t pour money into developing & using it. It would be a unique feat to be powerful with no chance of any of the effects being harmful.
From there, it’s just arithmetics: what harms and benefits do we expect with what probabilities, and how does this change depending on the distribution scheme?
Once AI starts actually reasoning that we'll suffer less when we're dead is when the paperclip maximizer-styled comedy begins.
In addition, aren't they all open and royalty-free — i.e. the closest equivalent to open source?
In contrast, OpenAI does directly produce software.
There are arguments to be made that AI shouldn't be open, but the name of the company is misleading.
> Suppose that artificial intelligence research has succeeded in constructing a computer that behaves as if it understands Chinese. It takes Chinese characters as input and, by following the instructions of a computer program, produces other Chinese characters, which it presents as output. Suppose, says Searle, that this computer performs its task so convincingly that it comfortably passes the Turing test: it convinces a human Chinese speaker that the program is itself a live Chinese speaker.
> Searle then supposes that he is in a closed room and has a book with an English version of the computer program, along with sufficient papers, pencils, erasers, and filing cabinets. Searle could receive Chinese characters through a slot in the door, process them according to the program's instructions, and produce Chinese characters as output. If the computer had passed the Turing test this way, it follows, says Searle, that he would do so as well, simply by running the program manually.