This needs far more context for an educated discussion.
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
195 points (82.4% liked)
Technology
34862 readers
65 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
In the picture you can see organizations moving in the public sphere around AI. On the left you have right-wing and libertarian think tanks, corporations and frontline actors that fuel a sense of panic around AI, either to sabotage their business competitors or to leverage this panic to project an idea of being sellers of a very powerful tool while at the same time deflecting responsibility. If the AI is dangerous and sentient, you won't care much about the engineers behind.
On the right you have several public orgs or NGOs operating in the field of algorithmic accountability, digital rights and so on. They push the opposite of the AI panic, pointing the finger at the corporations and powers that create and govern AI
So its basically just a list of entities in the field. With no actual information or reasoning. In a vague and arbitrary mood chart.
Hey thanks for adding this context!
What is this based on? Some kind of paper? Were there objective criteras, which were choosen beforehand, and on which the companies were rated, leading to there grouping in these groups?
Or did you just made up 4 cool sounding categories, which you fitted various companies in, based on your personal opinion?
It's not from me but from AlgorithmWatch, one of the most famous and respected NGOs in the field of Algorithmic accountability. They published plenty of stuff on these topics and human rights threats from these companies.
Also this is an ecosystem analysis of political positioning. These companies and think tanks are going on newspapers with their names to say we should panic about AI. It's not a secret, just open Google News and you fill find a landslide of news on these topics sponsored by these companies with a simple search.
"AI panic" is such a broad term that it is really meaningless.
If by panic you mean AI hype, then maybe.
For example, this post is just as sensationalist.
What the heck is AI Panic?
btw you missed Meta, they are very significant in the field of AI.
The idea AI will destroy or reshape the world.
I think it fits into the idea that people selling AI are pitching it as "this product is powerful either you buy now or pay for not doing so later" and they have an incentive to overstate its power.
But that's all marketing, it's not specific to AI.
Any company that does marketing is looking to create demand and generate interest. Part of generating interest is tapping into your desire , which could include want to get ahead and not getting left behind.
Can I get an explanation as to how these companies are “marketers of ai panic”?
They are directly selling AI-based products and services. They release or boost sensational stories about those capabilities through their various channels of media influence so they can make their products seem more powerful and useful than they really are. The sensationalisation widens the window on what seems possible even if it's nowhere near the reality. Even people who don't buy into those notions about society-destroying automation or humanity-threatening emergence are more likely to buy into stuff that seems tamer but still lacks any substantial proof of viability like AI driving or AI written movie scripts.
Never having heard the term AI panic makes this kinda meaningless. But I guess AI panic is evil, as it is promoted by the typically more evil companies?
How is OpenAI evil?
You might have heard of singularity, sentient AI, uprising of the ai, job losses due to automation. That's all propaganda that sits under the concept of AI panic.
job losses due to automation
Oh yeah this has never happened. Brb, gonna go tell all my fellow assembly line workers this concept is total propaganda
automation never reduces jobs. It fragments them, it reduces their quality, it increases deskilling and replaceability. We are not going to work less as we never worked less thanks to automation. If we want to work less, we need unionization, not machines.
But how are Microsoft and other LLM companies marketing on AI Panic?
I honestly don’t understand what this graph means. I don’t get what the four sectors mean, how the author decided to distribute companies among the four sectors, or why the four sectors are divided into two equivalent circles.
Neither do I. Not a very good diagram.
All I can figure out is the pink side is pure evil and the blue side are our saviors. Given the color scheme, perhaps this is yet another failed gender reveal?
Microsoft bought OpenAI. The AI panic pushed by Sam Altman is sanctioned by Microsoft.
It's ridiculous to call ideas that have existed for half a century propaganda now that we're actually approaching those things...
I've never heard the singularity referred to as AI panic. It's usually talked about as a good thing. The point when technology becomes infinitely self-improving. If someone was a promoter of the singularity, that would mean they are trying to achieve/advocate for it not prevent it.
“Our AI is so good, it’s going to start replacing skilled laborers” is a hell of a sales pitch. I can’t even be mad, using panic to market AI is clever.
view more: next ›