I'm concerned that their ideologues as it were are going to go around invading people's privacy in order to feed into some "algorithm" to do a load of number crunching on (probably for questionable gains) with some vague idea like this relating to health.
https://www.dtu.dk/english/news/all-news/artificial-intelligence-can-predict-events-in-peoples-lives?id=49c0a5da-0ef9-4222-8f59-aff35888a2ba But, did they think about their #privacy, when building this... Questionable thing? Also, at first glance, it appears to have told us things we already knew.
https://reason.com/2023/12/27/british-teen-gets-potential-life-sentence-for-grand-theft-auto-vi-hack/ Reason comments on *that* incident.
https://reason.com/2023/12/23/jeff-brandes-on-criminal-justice-reform/ Reason interviews a less "law and order" Floridian Republican politician.
He says things like this:
"I sat on the criminal justice committee back in 2014 and recognized pretty quickly that there was no real leadership on that issue statewide and that the prison system in Florida was circling the drain. I began to tour prisons, and the more I toured, the less I liked. I was often going to prisons that had 1,500 inmates and zero education opportunities, realizing that a vast majority of our prisons were understaffed. We had really created a Department of Warehousing and not a Department of Corrections. We weren't correcting behavior. We weren't getting better outcomes. So I started to work to fix that."
Might be an interesting read.
By the way, by his own standards (if someone believes in whatever he is doing, frankly, he seems to be a troublemaker) what he is doing seems to be... very unethical.
For instance, instead of giving advice (well, minus all the censorship and most over the top stuff) to someone many months ago quietly, he seems to have sat there trying to manufacture a "scandal", so that he could descend down like some sort of "wise sage".
Even if the vendor was wrong though, or perhaps, imprecise (seems like a stretch, but alright, let's theorize that way), it's still the usual "what if" "could be" "might be" "possibly".
And, again, not really practically relevant.
Oh, look, another hit piece, except they never bothered to ask whether the model was actually trained on the entire dataset, or a filtered part.
I also hope it's not another "picture of the room" or a "clothed person" which he seemed to mention last time, which are in his dataset of evil bits.
He admits it is extremely unlikely to have a practical impact, although this isn't very interesting, it is also buried. Typical.
David just won't stop embarrassing himself. What a pathetic little man. He really should get a life.
Anyway, they've gone above and beyond to make sure that isn't in there now. Satisfied?
The point on the filtering comes from the vendor, not the known bad faith actor exercising his imagination. It's worth mentioning that this is a point he could have easily verified.
Reminder about my updated dive into bad faith conflations of fiction and reality (i.e. talking about a fictional scenario in similar tones as to if it was actually real in a bad faith manner), including for #AI and VR, although not limited to those two.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7mzpj/pornhub-content-deleted-verification
"Before the purge that disappeared more than 75 percent of content on the platform, Pornhub hosted a lot of videos and photos that weren’t humans having sex. There were full-length movies, memes, and video game playthroughs that you might see on a non-adult site like Twitch, but there was also a ton of animation, 3D renderings, audio erotica, music videos, fanfic from furries and bronies, and stop-motion animation like LEGO minifigs fucking."
From 2020.
Software Engineer. Psy / Tech / Sex Science Enthusiast. Controversial?
Free Expression. Human rights / Civil Liberties. Anime. Liberal.