Technology

60123 readers

5129 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

468

OpenAI just admitted it can't identify AI-generated text. That's bad for the internet and it could be really bad for AI models. (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology

133 comments fedilink hide all child comments

OpenAI just admitted it can't identify AI-generated text. That's bad for the internet and it could be really bad for AI models.::In January, OpenAI launched a system for identifying AI-generated text. This month, the company scrapped it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

then what the fuck are you even arguing? i never said "we should do NO regulation!" my criticism was against blaming A.I. for things that aren't problems created by A.I.

i said "you have given no argument against A.I. currently that doesn’t boil down to “the actual problem is unsolvable, so get rid of all automation and technology!” when addressed."

because you haven't made a cohesive point towards anything i've specifically said this entire fucking time.

are you just instigating debate for... a completely unrelated thing to anything i said in the first place? you just wanted to be argumentative and pissy?

i was addressing the general anti-A.I. stance that is heavily pushed in media right now, which is generally unfounded and unreasonable.

I.E. addressing op's article with "Existing datasets still exist. The bigger focus is in crossing modalities and refining content." i'm saying there is a lot of UNREASONABLE flak towards A.I. you freaked out at that? who's the one with no nuance?

your entire response structure is just.. for the sake of creating your own argument instead of actually addressing my main concern of unreasonable bias and push against the general concept of A.I. as a whole.

i'm not continuing with you because you are just making your own argument and being aggressive.

I never said "we can't have any regulation"

i even specifically said " i have advocated for particular A.I. tools to get much more regulation for over 5-10 years. how long have you been addressing the issue?"

jesus christ you are just an angry accusatory ball of sloppy opinions.

maybe try a conversation next time instead of aggressively wasting people's time.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

my criticism was against blaming A.I. for things that aren’t problems created by A.I.

So, like, everything? I've talked about the problems and shit AI will cause on us and your only response consistantly was "Yeahhhh but if we completely ban my precious AI then we wont have all of it's nice things! Better to wait until capitalism is magically solved". Then the problems that weren't economics-related you handwaved away. Please illuminate me on a problem you think is real, caused by AI, and that you would be willing to regulate within the bounds of our current system?

because you haven’t made a cohesive point towards anything i’ve specifically said this entire fucking time.

I've argued against your mentality and the mentality of the people that always show up on posts concerned about AI to defend it. I've even responded to specific phrases you said. What else do you even want?

my main concern of unreasonable bias and push against the general concept of A.I. as a whole.

If you don't want people to feel threatened by AI, maybe be willing to fix its threats? Maybe don't just go to something people find concerning and say "we can't dare to do anything about this!" and try to reframe it as some sort of tragic prevention by the ignorant masses?

i even specifically said " i have advocated for particular A.I. tools to get much more regulation for over 5-10 years. how long have you been addressing the issue?"

That means nothing to me. Those are just words. Your actions have been vehemently defending AI and trying to convince me that curtailing it is pointless, while also trying to appear concerned about its threats. Those are completely contradictory positions that you held now, and that's what I pointed out. I don't care what you have been doing for years.

jesus christ you are just an angry accusatory ball of sloppy opinions. maybe try a conversation next time instead of aggressively wasting people’s time.

When have I ever obbligated you to respond to me? I've never hidden that this topic and people who think like you make me angry. If you didn't want to deal with it you could have just ignored me.

It does make me angry. It makes me angry to see so many people be threatened so unfairly. It makes me angry to see people not care about that and prefer seeing further sophistication of a thoughtless algorithm over lives, but at least those people are honest. Dishonesty is what makes me livid. Those that have the same attitude but know they'd sound awful if they said it straight forwardly, so they try to find a hip and cool thing to parade as. It's totally anti-capitalist to not want to stop capitalist corporations abusing workers to replace them bro, trust me.