RosamundiOh.
Kate Watson@rosamundi have you seen this @cabd ?
Cab@antinomy @rosamundi yeah, someone sent me that yesterday. Couple of people in fact. It's beyond unnerving.
@rosamundi @cabd I genuinely don’t understand what someone who publishes something like that is thinking. Could they genuinely believe the “AI knowledge” is more accurate?? But if so why conceal it’s AI generated?
Ben Sizer@antinomy @rosamundi @cabd I think the answer is that it’s simply something that could be made very quickly and sold for money. I doubt any other factors came into it.
@cabd @kylotan @rosamundi Oh, I’m sure you’re right. I’m just hoping against hope no one would intentionally be that utterly careless with other people’s safety :(
History is littered with people doing bad things in pursuit of a few quid. Just off the top of my head:
Edit: I misremembered my arsenic in sweets case, the Bradford poisoning was accidental. But it was deliberately used in all sorts of things that it shouldn't have.
Beauty product manufacturer: "there's this new thing, radium, don't know anything about it, but it glows in the dark, let's put it in face cream, we can tell ladies it will make them glow!"
And so on...
@rosamundi @antinomy @kylotan also, there are people who genuinely believe that AI will be better at this than people. So while indeed some folk are greedy, some are contemptuous of other people's welfare, some are also just horrifically misguided.
David S (inactive)@cabd @rosamundi @antinomy @kylotan
it's an interesting question when some will only see two options:
Is a flawed algorithm that's 100% consistent better than some overworked human that rushes stuff and makes mistakes or misses these things.
Of course the third answer is rarely considered which is:
pay good people a good wage to do a good job with good governance. But that one's expensive, so of course nobody wants that.