No but that is what I am saying. It seems like unanimously everyone was like "this is fucking stupid".

Its not left v Right, it seems everyone was on the same page, I am sure you can find some fringe minority like you always can with anything, but the mass majority regardless of political alignment, said yeah this is completely inaccurate and broken.

I think to add to this, there's obviously going to be guardrails in any AI, there has to be. There's a larger conversation at hand now of whos going to be responsible for dictating what those guardrails are, and historically the government lags well behind private industry.

You look at something like Sora and its pretty amazing, think of the computing power that's happening behind creating 1 full minute of AI generated video. But obviously without guardrails all around that type of diffusion, you would have some sick things coming out of it, impersonation, crime, etc.

I don't know how you're going to regulate something like Sora if it you ever have an open source hit the market. I guess right now , its so intensive from GPU and CPU requirements you can just limit who can even use it.

This post was edited by SBD on Feb 23 2024 09:39am

i think America is full of issues that are deeply bipartisan and yet they're not at all tackled by the govt. failing social security, inflation, fentanyl, hell even legal pot has a majority for it.

corporations are the same, people can be unanimously against something and yet it doesnt change their action.

as to guardrails i havent seen any that look likely so far. ai is the wild west atm, and regulation to try and rein it in will likely be too reactionary. the corporations will be the govt in 100 years, ive been saying that far before chat GPT was even a single line of code. automation and AI will swallow human autonomy.

Yeah right now were fully reliant on guardrails set by the developer themselves, for instance Sora which could be used for horrendous things is a closed AI and probably will not be open source for a long time, and it is C2PA Meta Data which watches how all data is modified and where any original content came from.

yup, sadly we are at the whims of people who see not the AI they're developing as the product, but us as the product. the world of data sales is frightening, the idea that AI is just a mechanism to streamline that is scary too.

groupthink and auto homogenization is well documented, speeding it up via AI means the guardrails are really important.

When you ask the AI to show you a depiction of a 1400's British Monarch, and it shows you a black man and an asian woman, it's doing a little more than just "being woke". An AI that re-writes history, released by the company that operates the largest and most widely-used search engine on the planet, which people rely on to learn about *shocker!* history, could be a bit of a concern, don't you think?

It blew up because not everyone is so stupid as to fail to understand the potential ramifications of a company building an AI that seeks to remove an entire ethnicity from existence.

>”Haha conservatives are so dumb and paranoid, there’s no bias in big tech, its all algos”

>2024 big tech: what is a white person?

When Trump was in office, it was interesting to google the simple term, "Latest Presidential Executive Order". 3 pages of results from hard left news sources. Wasn't until page 4 of the results that the actual executive order from whitehouse.gov was listed. Likewise, it's pretty seldom to see fox news or daily wire or breitbart or any other such "right leaning" news sources coming up first in results, unless it's a story that nobody else has yet covered.

Google's been playing fast and loose with it's search engine for a couple decades now. That they're now making an AI that they can integrate into the search engine that is even worse should shock nobody.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 23 2024 10:53pm

Im not saying that's not an issue. What I'm saying is it was unanimous that everyone for the most part took concern or at minimum thought it was absurde.

This post was edited by SBD on Feb 24 2024 12:50am

I didn't "take concern" specifically, and frankly, I don't think it's absurd. While it's far more blatant than Google normally plays it, it falls directly in line with other ways they've altered their algorithms to push certain narratives.

When Gemini will not even list pedophilia as "wrong" because it claims that pre-pubescent children can be sexually attracted to older people, while also writing white people out of their own history, and claiming it can't provide a depiction of Mohammed because the Hadiths tells it not to, but it'd be happy to tell you all about Mohammed, are there a lot of questions remaining regarding the narratives it is designed to push?

Google search is gonna turn all kinds of fun when the AI is given direct access to determine search results based on the narratives it's been designed to push.

As if I'm going to trust a Gemini