Resident Philosopher for AI Ethics

Source: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/588

Comics @lemmy.ml

120 3

10 comments

Hmmm... A bomb may not actually guarantee significant enough data loss. Particularly if they are following the 3-2-1 backup rule. I wonder what the best way to ensure the most damage to the AI.
- Corrupt the training data with illegal numbers
  
  Illegal numbers are so illegal that you just linked a Wikipedia article containing a bunch of them, i.e. not very illegal. For an AI company already skirting copyright law, they're not a concern at all.
- It's just one of the bombs.

Here's hoping. crosses fingers

Isn't that the plot of a Black Mirror episode.

Kropotkin is wrong, the data existed but it was made usable in a new way by methods which would not have existed without this company.
Secondly, open source is not the only ethical form of technology, that’s an inherently biased and simplistic way to think. In fact, having access to some types of tech or information can make the world less safe or more unethical.
Edit corrected sentence, and lol @ downvoters constantly butthurt that their Marxist pov is challenged
- Kropotkin died in 1921 so you'd be explaining it to him using wireless radio or telegram cables or similar.
  A newspaperman has invented a new way to transmit the encyclopedia over the radio without you having to visit a library. A machine like a very complicated typewriter takes your cable and returns the entry from the encyclopedia to you immediately. They charge for this service but do not pay the encyclopedia writer, and the ink for the typewriter is made by burning down a forest and polluting a river. The newspaperman also takes the labor of his employees for profit and directs the government in his whims, and frequently changes the output of the encyclopedia to meet his political ends.
  While you may disagree those are bad things, it would certainly be consistent with Kropotin's world view to he against it.
- What if you don't want to make your data usable by AI chatbots, is that not your right?
  
  It is, but that’s not the premise I was challenging. I was challenging the premise that this company did nothing new, or that open source is always ethical tech.

10 comments