It feels like OpenAI is mostly concerned with developing proofs of the untrustability of every digital medium, creating a convincing case either for doing everything in person again, or necessitating cryptographic signatures on absolutely everything.
Of course, the road from here to there may be bumpy...
Ultimately you should reason and investigate deeper to hold somewhat accurate opinion on anything.
Most media and news out there already is where the agenda comes first and then it is about compiling cherry picked content from wide variety of content as evidence for that agenda. And you can find content to support any agenda already.
It is a simple algorithm of:
1. We want to prove X.
2. From millions of datapoints we pick the 100 that support X the most.
3. We write an article on it.
4. Most of our readers already agree with X so they will be happy about it. No need to go deeper.
5. Anyone who doesn't agree would probably not read our platform anyway.
No it doesn't, this is ridiculous. All of you guys with your "this is just like the printing press" arguments are so intellectually lazy, think a little more about the problems of scale and speed and the way information spreads in the modern world.
Which, to me, makes sense. Once the underlying technology exists, a malicious actor would not think twice before developing tools of deceptionlike those. It makes sense that OpenAI would work on that "in the open" to demonstrate that we now need to be skeptical of audios.
Agreed. I'm still waiting for the part of AI where it's supposed to benefit mankind.
So far, it's 10% entrainment, 20% employment elimination, and 70% crypto-grade hype.
The next AI winter can't come soon enough so the tech industry can get back to doing useful things.
How is this not benefiting mankind?
If you're concerned with unequal distribution of the generated wealth then that's a political problem, nothing to do with AI.
Often the same people will cry over-regulation about ML tech rollout potentially being suppressed and controlled via policy, even though that is literally the implication of their position.
Am I alone in thinking that this would not be a bad thing?
Obviously not everywhere: I don't need a reddit worldnews comment or a recipe for blueberry muffins signed.