@aburka @mattsains @Infoseepage @ProPublica @lenfestinstitute Correct: there isn't.
The JD and post are deliberately worded. This is a research post. Is there a way to use these technologies in a way that's aligned with our values and need for safety? "No" is a very viable outcome here. Either way, we need to do our due diligence rather than knee-jerk it away or join the hype cycle.
The position is funded by Lenfest and doesn't come out of our existing donations.
@ben @mattsains @Infoseepage @ProPublica @lenfestinstitute
> The position is funded by Lenfest
Based on the link in the JD, this appears to be a carefully worded non-truth (more gaslighting). The funding comes from OpenAI and is officially geared towards increasing AI adoption. Something tells me Microsoft and OpenAI will not take no for an answer. I just can't believe Ben is so incredibly naive as to not understand this. It's so frustrating to be lied to!
@ben @aburka @mattsains @Infoseepage @ProPublica @lenfestinstitute "Nor do we need to use any specific technology." This does not seem accurate. The job description requires:
- Experience using generative AI and large language models APIs.
- Familiarity with LLM prompt engineering, fine-tuning or evaluation techniques.
Generative AI and LLMs are specific unethical technologies that have no business in journalism because they cannot preserve truth or accuracy by their nature.