this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2023
15 points (82.6% liked)
Programming
17020 readers
240 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
On the politicians / rulemakers side of things, that may or may not be a good thing tbh. Technology moves so fast and traditionally the aforementioned groups are glacial and can't keep up, sometimes to the benefit of a small group, often to the detriment of the majority. Having this on their radar relelatively soon is potentially a useful change.
While it's nice that politicians are enthusiastic about new technologies, I think ChatGPT is one example where they shouldn't force mass adoption. ChatGPT is a proprietary model owned by a private corporation, and it's made very clear that interaction data with ChatGPT will be collected and used by OpenAI for its business. It's horrible for data security and it helps to strengthen OpenAI's monopoly. Honestly, governments recommending privately owned software and technologies should be considered advertising.
That side of it I wholeheartedly agree with. Perhaps I'm just deluding myself into thinking technology awareness early on makes for better legal infrastructure to handle its effect on society. I really would like that to be the case.
But yeah agree, "ChatGPT" being synonymous with "groundbreaking AI" to the vast majority of the public (I suspect) is not great from a monopoly perspective.
Is this not also true if the software is open-source? It's still advertising, but it's somehow ok because a corporation doesn't benefit? It's not that I don't agree with you - regulatory capture and vendor lock-in are much less of a concern for free and/or open-source software, but that doesn't mean it's not still advertising.
That's true