This seems like it’s Meta testing the boundaries of contemporary chatbots so they can refine their stuff so they don’t continually get sued. Given the absurdness of modernity, where people are using these bots in-lieu of other social interactions, this seems like a worthwhile stress test. Assuming they share the findings and don’t sell them which is likely asking too much of a corp.
This article, and especially the headline, seems like it’s fearmongering without substance. It’s like the headlines from anti-science tabloids describing an research article in the most biased terms possible. Thus, this article leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
If (and that if is doing so much heavy lifting) they actually were probing their own AI this way, your point might be valid. But doing it secretly while still saying that AI is safe to use (like so many AI companies have done) is disingenuous.
What the article says is that Meta was directing contractors to do this to their competitors AI.
This comment contexualizes Meta‘s propaganda about AI, which the article doesn’t do. Mentioning Meta‘s AI blitz along with the secretive nature of this would have strengthened the article IMO.
The article clearly says very little, except this:
But what Meta did with all this data is unclear.
No shit Zuck doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. The point is this article says very little and reads like a Fox News quality fear piece. Futurism is better than that.
This seems like it’s Meta testing the boundaries of contemporary chatbots so they can refine their stuff so they don’t continually get sued. Given the absurdness of modernity, where people are using these bots in-lieu of other social interactions, this seems like a worthwhile stress test. Assuming they share the findings and don’t sell them which is likely asking too much of a corp.
This article, and especially the headline, seems like it’s fearmongering without substance. It’s like the headlines from anti-science tabloids describing an research article in the most biased terms possible. Thus, this article leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Am I missing something?
Edit: related article(https://www.engadget.com/2209332/meta-is-facing-1-4-trillion-in-state-lawsuits-over-social-media-addiction/)
If (and that if is doing so much heavy lifting) they actually were probing their own AI this way, your point might be valid. But doing it secretly while still saying that AI is safe to use (like so many AI companies have done) is disingenuous.
What the article says is that Meta was directing contractors to do this to their competitors AI.
This comment contexualizes Meta‘s propaganda about AI, which the article doesn’t do. Mentioning Meta‘s AI blitz along with the secretive nature of this would have strengthened the article IMO.
Appreciated.
Not only has Zuck not earned the benefit of the doubt, that’s clearly not what the article says.
The article clearly says very little, except this:
No shit Zuck doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. The point is this article says very little and reads like a Fox News quality fear piece. Futurism is better than that.