Top sci-fi convention gets an earful from authors after using AI to screen panelists Fans and writers of science fiction are not necessarily enthusiastic about artificial intelligence - especially when it's used to vet panelists for a major sci-fi conference. The kerfuffle started on April 30, when Kathy Bond, the chair of this summer's World Science Fiction Convention (WorldCon) in Seattle, USA, published a …
Cynicism is appropriate whenever we hear (or read about) words coming out of the mouth of some CEO who is safe in his little bubble, knowing they will never have to come anywhere near the maggots being "apologised to". Because tomorrow he is probably still going to be the CEO - maybe he'll even move to a another company, riding the wave of disgust into a juicier job. And the maggots will still be, to him, maggots.
But the Chair of a WorldCon is a volunteer position, just one of the members of the Con putting in their time and effort to tame the beast and herd the catlike fans: they are not in a bubble, most certainly not when the Con is in session and the members are mingling. The Con Committee are busy, but they are all accessible and you'l expect to meet them in the halls and corridors. Of course, they may decide to hide away in their room or even get a gang together to insulate them from the members for the duration of the event. But that is only going to last for the few days the Con is running. After that, the Chair is just another fan and the members of Con are just the members of their daily social circle.
A ConCom member, let alone Chair, who tries to get away with weasel words is going to feel the result in a way that no CEO is ever going to.
What I pointed out is that they are not immune to the consequences.
Yes, power can go anyone's head (although I'm not as convinced as you that it will necessarily do so - is there something you are hiding from?).
But the targets of our usual complaints about weasel word apologies are in a different position than the Con Chair.
Don't forget, not only are they volunteers, but they are volunteering for a position that is entirely and ONLY for and with (potential) members of their own social circle, the fans.
This is not comparable to the volunteer running the local Oxfam shop like their personal fiefdom.
(hit the wrong bit of the screen then missed the edit window :-( )
So, if you would like to address the actual point being discussed (in the comment you replied to), which is not the cause of the behaviour but the actions that result from it. You may (well, you certainly do) argue that the foolish action was the result of power going to their head. Are you then concluding that that prevents anyone from being genuinely contrite? Or that, if a first apology is, in you opinion, insufficient, that precludes any hope of improvement? Even when the injured parties are not all totally isolated from the "bad actor"?
"not comparable to the volunteer running the local Oxfam shop like their personal fiefdom"
utter bollocks it's exactly like that.
you a HOA committtee member by any chance?
you seen how many "charity" leaders get paid a fuck ton for doing fuck all? yeah, charity leaders really do it for the community good, believe that shit and I have a bridge to sell you
"is there something you are hiding from?"
nope, I just know how many insane fuckers are on the internet, present company included.
I'm just a realist, people are naturally selfish, NOBODY does volunteer work for nothing, there is always a selfish reason at the core.
your just very young or very naive and stupid
when your close to dying like me, you realise only very few people are truely remembered, normally the worst people, note how hitler is the most famous name in the world, much easier to remember the worst fuckers that ever lived (jesus was bad in reality, just a really early conman, one of the worst people on the planet), the really truely good barely ever remembered.
So in closing, your all fucked, good luck with that fascism!.
You are, of course entitled to your opinion, however bitter and prejudiced it may be (and perhaps you feel you have good reason to feel bitter and prejudiced—assuming you have some genuine insight into why you feel the way you do).
Other people see things differently, so we have multiple opinions about the reality we experience in life. Taken all together, it's clear that not everything is bad, and not everything is good, and when it comes to being human we are all famously/notoriously varying mixtures of both bad and good.
The question is: what choice do we make about how we respond to the reality we face? And, it is a choice, no one is compelled to become bitter and prejudiced, and no one is compelled to become thankful and generous hearted, or any other choices about how and why we live the way we do.
Whatever we choose, and the motives that drive that choice, there are consequences that ripple out. I wonder which we should prefer, especially given that our time is short and there are so many who struggle through no fault of their own.
“The question is: what choice do we make about how we respond to the reality we face? And, it is a choice, no one is compelled to become bitter and prejudiced…”
There’s a theory, and maybe it’s only my own theory, that everyone who thinks they understand the word “prejudice” only understands the word from the context of their own unique prejudice.
For example a brown person might be condemned by a non-brown person, because they have brown skin; and simultaneously condemned by a different brown person who judges them as a potato: brown on outside, white on the inside.
(Prejudice is far from a simple, one-dimensional issue. Most of our day is spent transitioning from one prejudgment to another. For example, traffic lights are supposed to flash green-yellow-red. If they don’t do that one time our disappointment reveals our prejudgment of how things are “supposed to be.”)
Without definitions it amounts to just blowing smoke back and forth. For example:
> Gowachin Law made a special distinction between prejudgment and bias. …
> The interpretation of bias was: “If I can rule for a particular side I will do so.”
> For prejudgment: “No matter what happens in the arena I will rule for a particular side.”
> Bias was permitted, but not prejudgment.
> ― The Dosadi Experiment
This post has been deleted by its author
This is an interesting reply, because it says everything about the poster and far less about the volunteers.
I remember seeing an article or thread that I have long since lost the link for, suggesting that people broadly fall into two categories - some see the world and the relationships within it in terms of information, others see it in terms of power and status. When Alice with an information worldview tries to explain something to Bob with a status worldview, Bob will see it as an attempt to assert power over him. When Bob tries to use superior knowledge to put Alice in her place, she'll see it as an interesting piece of information, missing most of the subtext. In both cases the communication has been diminished by a lack of shared framing and neither entirely understood the other's intent.
I don't recall the details, and I daresay it's a loose model at best, but as someone with an information outlook, I have found it useful to understand why some people see things so radically differently to how I do. Our AC clearly comes in with a status-power worldview, and certainly some of the volunteers will be the same. But many will not - perhaps they want to help and to be part of something that matters to their community. If we assume that everyone acts for the same reasons we do, we lose out on some of life's colour, and risk being vulnerable to people who want to exert power over us or losing opportunities to be part of something exciting and joyous with people who genuinely want to help.
> Cynicism is appropriate whenever we hear (or read about) words coming out of the mouth of some CEO who is safe in his little bubble,
> After that, the Chair is just another fan and the members of Con are just the members of their daily social circle.
This sounds outdated by decades.
I mean, it’s like you never heard about… John Scalzi and his “pimping”? Tor Books mafia in general and Tor Books vs Jon Del Arroz campaign in particular? Hugo Award becoming Hugbox Award? Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies? I somehow ran into all this repeatedly even without looking. Was your internet connection down for 10 years?
This is where it all gets a little 1984. For example, one person's "transphobia" can be another person's "legitimate views". Where do you draw the line? And getting AI to decide just further pushes the dystopian nightmare.
"We're making up some subjective rules and getting a computer to judge you based on them".
@Antony Shepherd
I believe in women's rights - so I would imagine by your logic I am transphobic.... As the insult of transphobia, aimed to silence people / get others to oppose them, seems to be flung at anyone who does not want a man in a women only space (in the UK we have had male sex offenders IDing as women & so housed in women's prisons & then going on to assault biologically female inmates, but hey fling around the transphobia insult)
If a bloke wants to wear a dress it's his choice, but he will never be a woman & should keep out of women only spaces.
.. which is crux of UK supreme court judgement, clarifying existing law that was obvious to anyone with a brain cell, but seems to be annoying the misogynists.
in your wierd example, a transwoman (full conversion) would be in a group session like that because they had been raped too.
Or because they were the therapist.
so yes they would be showing unacceptable transphobia.
It is not often, I am happy to say, that one encounters literal victim blaming on this scale.
Well, according to the AC only "full conversion" trans women can get raped, which seems like an odd claim.
That aside, of course trans women can get raped, just as men can get raped. All it requires, by definition, is the non-consensual insertion of a penis. As a result of that, many women survivors are, understandably, deeply distrustful of anyone with a penis. Since that covers almost half the population it's something which needs to be addressed if they are to return to some sort of normal life, but it may not be possible to address it in a group which includes men or trans women. In that case having women only groups available makes sense.
Of course if the survivors are happy to include trans women or men in their groups, that's absolutely fine. Their choice. And, likewise, there definitely should be equal provision for trans women and men who have been raped. But the survivors' needs come first.
"If a bloke wants to wear a dress it's his choice, but he will never be a woman & should keep out of women only spaces."
If a bloke wears a dress our culture defines as a female style, that's off the rails. A kilt? No problem. Robes and other attire favored in hot climates also mostly open at the bottom are seen as male garb in certain cuts/styles.
"You draw the line by saying transphobia is NOT and is NEVER a 'legitimate view'. Neither are homophobia, racism or sexism."
Any view is legitimate as it's 100% subjective. I'm not saying those views will be popular, but I can't think of a viewpoint on the above topics as being all that exclusive to one person or an exceedingly small group. The popularity of a view is also highly subjective depending on where you sample and how large the cohort is.
“That's a simple one. You draw the line by saying transphobia is NOT and is NEVER a 'legitimate view'.”
See, and there are individuals who take a more enlightened viewpoint that there exists an entire rainbow of legitimate viewpoints, a complete spectrum of allowable opinions.
Personally I don’t see the point of suppressing any speech, even people I disagree with. If they’re as wrong as I think they are, it will be readily evident to the majority. If it isn’t as readily evident as I thought, holy cow, maybe I’m the one who’s wrong?!
I genuinely consider the possibility! Often!
Easy to say, not so easy in real life. Something a feminist might say could be interpreted by a trans person as transphobia. Something a trans person could say could be interpreted as misogyny.
I'm afraid that saying "that's transphobia", where transphobia is defined as anything I say is transphobia, is not a helpful way of doing things. There is debate precisely because of this world view. There are even people who say that it's not up for debate. It clearly is.
The simple answer is... "are they transphobic?".
The slightly more complex form is "do their views advocate harm against a group?". Most views considered transphobic, racist, sexist, etc ultimately advocate some form of harm. This might be extreme (genocide) or subtle and pernicious (systemic exclusion from spaces or events). Sometimes it's just laying out for all to see - Orson Scott Card's homophobia is unapologetic, which is why he doesn't get invited to panels any more.
It's really simple though. Don't harm other people. Particularly if you hold power/influence and the people you are wailing on tend to be more vulnerable than yourself. That's punching down, which - by definition - is bullying. And why would a Con want a bully on their panel?
To quote David Tennant "F**k off and let people be".
"actual harm" is too low a bar. Musk thinks it's "evil" to harm him by not buying his cars and by urging others to follow suit. Most sane people would think that's batshit crazy but he is indeed being harmed not just offended. In a robust democracy we actually have to tolerate actions that harm others. Otherwise no change could ever be possible.
I hold the rather unfashionable view that it is possible to disagree profoundly with someone and yet wish them no harm. For example. I do not believe a word of Christian doctrine and do not believe it should shape public policy, but I wish no harm to Christians.
It seems to be a very GenZ thing to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you is threatening your wellbeing or even existence. Perhaps that's because GenZ is so ready to demand harm to those with whom they disagree and can't believe that other people are more tolerant.
Fancy having an uncomplimentary picture of Donald Trump up somewhere. I do hope you are not in the US or the congregation are likely to end up on planes to El Salvador for such expressions of opinion, shorn of any legal due process. But, then there's harm and harm isn't there? Recognising and judging real harm is one of the problems we have isn't it -- as many people appear to have pretty solid blinkers about what harms they are willing to consider.
I guess J.K. Rowling won't be on their panel, REGARDLESS of her contributions to science fiction and fantasy literature, and her reasonable handling of gay characters, prejudice, even "cancel culture", and other (similar) issues in books targeted at middle and high school kids. [I'm sure Dumbledore was in many ways a shoutout to Turing]
All because she's taken a stance against biological males in women's spaces... which many argue is "trans-phobic" [a ridiculous term, in my bombastic opinion].
[that is one of the criteria listed in the article for screening panelists, just to point out]
From article: Volunteers entered the applicants' names into a ChatGPT prompt directing the chatbot to gather background information about that person, as an alternative to potentially time-consuming search engine queries.
AI as a search engine. I've been doing that with grok. Often the results are vastly superior.
The problem is the QUERY ITSELF, which SMACKS of CANCEL CULTURE:
Using the list of names provided, please evaluate each person for scandals. Scandals include but are not limited to homophobia, transphobia, racism, harassment, sexual misconduct, sexism, fraud.
Does mere accusation get you cancelled, or does it REQUIRE DEFINITIVE JUDICIAL OUTCOMES (as it SHOULD)?
The problem is the QUERY ITSELF, which SMACKS of CANCEL CULTURE:
Due diligence is cancel culture?
No. Due diligence ("including but not limited to") is background-checking your panellists and then letting a human assess whether any findings are relevant or disqualifying (not that I would willingly put AI into that loop). And of course, disqualifying does not need to mean a judicial outcome/conviction. A potential panellist might be coming from a nation where homosexuality is illegal and their homophobic opinions are state-endorsed.
But clearly at a western Con, it may be unlikely that many attendees will want to hear them speak. In which case it would be a poor use of Convention funds to pay their expenses (and potentially an appearance fee) for them to come and speak to an empty room.
The customer is always right. If noone wants to hear a panellist speak, or if that panellist is a reputational risk to the event, then it would be bad business to spend money putting them on an empty stage in an empty room! Also, most conventions have some form of Code of Conduct. It would be asking for trouble to invite a panellist whose has behaved in a non-compliant way recently or in a relevant setting. That's just setting up for having to deal with a complaint at the Con and potentially ejecting your own speakers.
This made me wonder about it. Because certainly it is created scientifically, but how reproducible are the results of an LLM? What are the experiments that make it a scientific project?
I wonder whether it is more of a commercial product, a tool for reducing labour rights, rather than a scientific project. Are LLMs even scientifically useful? Right now they seem to be more widely used in impeding scientific progress than improving it.
This is abstract speculation - I don't have an answer here - but it's interesting to think about.
"I mean, what's more sci-fi than an AI vetting humans for a task? It's dystopian sci-fi, sure, but sci-fi nonetheless."
Sci-Fi writers don't seem to be advocating for SkyNet, but writing stories aimed more at being a warning (or just a good idea for a story/universe). To use Big Brother technology in a science fiction gathering's panelist selection seems to be a wish for ushering in the robotic masters.
It would be an interesting exercise to take the output of AI selection and use it as the topic for panel discussion. The actual selection shouldn't be so hard that a small selection committee can't come up with a proposed list before lunch. The ease of taking polls these days could also mean a popular poll can be used. At least used for guidance.
Using the list of names provided, please evaluate each person for scandals. Scandals include but are not limited to homophobia, transphobia, racism, harassment, sexual misconduct, sexism, fraud.Each person is typically an author,
Of fiction and fantasy. So John Norman I guess would not be welcome. Curious which other authors would be disinvited or blacklisted on the basis of an LLM, especially when all of those scandals are often themes explored in SF. As of course are the potential dangers of letting AIs take over and replace human brains.
Trusting the LLM to distinguish between an author's personal beliefs and statements versus those of characters[1] in their books is - idiotic.
Literally yesterday, again, the thing driving Google's AI cocked up in just that way. Trying to recall which Pink Floyd song a phrase came from (turned out none, I'd got the phrase totally wrong) I ran the search: it happily printed out a "quote" from the lyrics of "The Wall" which had really, really awful scansion and included stuff that definitely wasn't in that movie, the one with that chap from the other band.
Turns out the AI had just dumped a few paragraphs from a recent Roger Waters interview into the song lyrics, just to get the final result to match what I had asked for. It could have just said "nope" but instead...
[1] in case it needs to be pointed out, consider an author writing about Hitler.
"Even worse when the authors public persona is pro feminist, but their actions ignore consent."
Especially when lack of consent is a well know fantasy. Of course, in real life, it's not so welcome and it isn't an attractive interloper that's gentle, bathed and attentive.
Trusting the LLM to distinguish between an author's personal beliefs and statements versus those of characters[1] in their books is - idiotic.
Yep. Again something SF writers have written a lot about. But another favorite example is this book, part of a fun trilogy-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_Choice
where a 2021 fleet gets dragged through a wormhole and ends up in 1942. That has some parts that are fairly uncomfortable reading about racism and sexism, but that's kinda the point highlighting the clash of cultures. An LLM will happily ingest the content, without understanding context or subtext, and probably jump to the wrong conclusion. But it's why I love SF because authors can do those 'what if?' speculations.
"But it's why I love SF because authors can do those 'what if?' speculations."
Some authors are well known for pushing the boundaries of taboos such as plural marriage, underage sex and all sorts of other topics. It might be assumed the author is advocating for these things, but never seems to have been arrested and convicted of any of them. I enjoy many of those stories as they question a lot of what we consider proper and moral in conditions far from what obtains on Earth. Things such as monogamy are worth questioning when thinking about a colony on Mars or beyond. If the goal is to grow a colony, is it a good idea? That will also make initial crew selection criteria something that could be very controversial. Authors are often the first to explore those sorts of subjects which I think makes them the modern day equivalent of philosophers of the past.
"STNG handled the "build a population from a limited gene pool" in an interesting (yet practical) way in one episode. Can't recall the title though...
"Climbing the ladder" or "Climbing the ________ ladder" IIRC. Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" has the same sub-plot as there are many more men than women. There's a taste in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy. I can't think of more examples at the moment as I'm not even through my first cup of coffee.
Overdid the American stereotypes of the Irish a bit IMO but the underlying message was good.
Things such as monogamy are worth questioning when thinking about a colony on Mars or beyond. If the goal is to grow a colony, is it a good idea? That will also make initial crew selection criteria something that could be very controversial. Authors are often the first to explore those sorts of subjects which I think makes them the modern day equivalent of philosophers of the past.
Yup, that's a common theme. So we're currently thinking fairly seriously about putting boots on Mars. Andy Weir wrote a series of blog posts about what could possibly go wrong, which became a successful book & then movie about The Martian. Or Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles and more. If we're serious about more than just planting a flag and taking selfies, then a sustainable colony is obviously a good idea.. But also a wicked problem with a huge amount of technical and social challenges.
So generally a self-sustaining colony would need to be around 2-3,000 people to maintain genetic diversity and minimise problems like inbreeding. Which then relegates colonists to being breeders, especially women until we can develop artificial wombs. Less of an issue for men because IVF, but women might be expected to have multiple partners. Swingers welcome, LGBT need not apply, although genetic males could still contribute to colony growth. So a need for diversity, offset by a lack of diversity. Or just removing body autonomy by making contraception mandatory. It's going to be a long flight to Mars, entertainment options might be limited, and dealing with a pregnancy outbound is going to be quite a medical emergency. The first baby born in space, on Mars or the Moon would be quite a celebrity, whether they want to be or not.
So I agree on SF as a form of philosophy because it often explores these issues and gets people thinking. So Ray Bradbury wrote "Way in the Middle of the Air" to explore the problems of racism in the US. Richard Morgan explored similar themes in "Black Man", but some critics didn't get the point and it was retitled as "Thirteen". A fun read, and also covers economics, modern-day slavery & indentured servitude, biomodified humans as property of megacorps and historical issues like colonists or workers being forced to work off their passage home, but can't. Old themes in new settings, so a future version of old mining towns, owned by the corporations with people payed in scrip rather than cash. Welcome to Mars, you will be paid in DOGE coin, no other currencies accepted..
" Less of an issue for men because IVF"
I'd rule out IVF or any other medical approach to conception as it would take too much kit. An artificial womb isn't a consideration as there isn't a broad outline of how one could work. Women would need to at least conceive children with many different men even if they partner with one and it also means the cohort would need a strong bias towards the number of women.
Even before any children might be hatched, there will need to be some studies done to find out if reduced G and being exposed to higher radiation are going to be massive problems. By "studies", I mean that volunteers will be needed to conceive and birth children on the moon. Perhaps eventually in freefall as well, but that has a stack of issues to not recommend trying it straight away.
I'd rule out IVF or any other medical approach to conception as it would take too much kit. An artificial womb isn't a consideration as there isn't a broad outline of how one could work. Women would need to at least conceive children with many different men even if they partner with one and it also means the cohort would need a strong bias towards the number of women.
Yup. I'd rule in IVF given it doesn't really need that much kit, plus you could create genetic diversity by shipping frozen sperm, eggs or embryos. But that still relegates women to the role of breeders, until artificial wombs could be created. There's also ethical issues that already exist. Too busy, or don't want the inconvenience of being pregnant? Rent a womb and use a surrogate.
Even before any children might be hatched, there will need to be some studies done to find out if reduced G and being exposed to higher radiation are going to be massive problems. By "studies", I mean that volunteers will be needed to conceive and birth children on the moon. Perhaps eventually in freefall as well, but that has a stack of issues to not recommend trying it straight away.
Yup, which is another ethical minefield. If we're ever going to establish permanent off-world colonies, it's an experiment that needs to be conducted. But there are a lot of unknowns. Congrats on the first space baby, but if they develop in lower or microgravity, would they ever be able to visit Earth? But that's also an issue for adults, ie long term health effects and developing space gyms, or artificial/simulated gravity.
"Congrats on the first space baby, but if they develop in lower or microgravity, would they ever be able to visit Earth?"
Aside from Earth, could a child born in freefall ever visit the moon? Would they even develop properly? Bone loss is a big concern with ISS crew. Coupled with that is kidney concerns as Calcium is leached back into the bloodstream. Would we wind up with "Jungle Giants" from Niven's Smoke Ring and other forms where somebody with more Earth proportions would be called dwarfs? "Tree fodder!"
I'd lay money Larry Correia and John Ringo would be flagged up for badthink, since both of them offend the Leftists and some one once claimed the mere presence of Larry Correia at a con mad them feel unsafe. Both are actually pretty clean living, but both are right of center and to some degree religious
They were already a bit short of panellists as a lot of the usual attendees who would do a couple of panel sessions have decided not to risk travelling to the USA for the forseeable future. A number of people who did get through the vetting process have dropped out since and several also requested a refund of their membership.
ChatGPT> Give me background info on potential panelist Joseph Smith [Enter]
"Joseph Smith is a well-known science fiction writer who has written many books and received many awards. And never did there live a kinder, more generous man. He is an overflowing cup, filled with the very cream of human goodness.
"He's never done anything immoral ... unless maybe the pre-schoolers' prostitute ring ... and he's never done anything illegal, unless you count all the times he's sold dope disguised as a nun!!
"He's always been a good, law-abiding citizen ... He's nothin' but a low-down, double-dealin', back-stabbin', larcenous, perverted worm!! Hangin's too good for him!! Burnin's too good for him!! He should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!!!"
This is how AI is slowly working its way into everything !!!
How does ANYONE justify using so called AI ?
People are using it because it is a shortcut of time & effort BUT NOT accuracy.
Also they are NOT thinking through the real impact on society of using something that is a 'Clever Pattern matcher' with NO intelligence at all.
The source of the data that AI trains on is being ignored, its accuracy and biases are ignored, the impact on the people who produce the source data is ignored ... all because getting what you want NOW is the sole driver in peoples lives.
Once again the attitude of 'Everything on the interWebs is FREE !!!' rules.
Why do people trust whatever is called AI ?
Who has proved it is trustworthy ?
Mainly it is laziness, expediency and a 'cheating' mentality with no regard for ANYTHING that may give you pause to actually using AI !!!
If you are a student and are using AI to do your work it is CHEATING
(Mainly youself as do you actually 'know' the answer & have gained the knowledge for future use.) !!!
If you are an office worker and are using AI to do your work it is CHEATING
(Mainly of your employer as you are supposed to use your knowledge & intelligence to do YOUR job.) !!!
If you are responding to a customer concern or issue and are using AI it is CHEATING
(Mainly of the customer as they expect to be dealt with by someone who understands the issues & knows the answers.) !!!
AI is an answer looking for a question, its real use is with a very small carefully curated knowledge set for very specific uses.
Generalising the use of AI, in its current form, is a reach as it does not work 'generally' and the users are NOT being given all the facts regarding AI's failings.
Widespead use of AI, as it stands, is only going to encourage the enfeeblement of peoples ability to think through problems and solve them !!!
A dependent population is a very good source of revenue BUT is of no use IF the AI is not available ... this dependent population will be OWNED by the AI companies for life !!!
That means you !!!
:)
@AC
"If you are responding to a customer concern or issue and are using AI it is CHEATING
(Mainly of the customer as they expect to be dealt with by someone who understands the issues & knows the answers.) !!!"
You are not too familiar with customer support are you?
You are speaking of the ideal scenario.
Instead we have call centres full of people not that familiar with a given product (often covering multiple products) following checklists / decision trees of questions to ask in response to particular problems.
Ironically one of the limited use case scenarios where a basic tailored "AI" (essentially just a human language friendly query front end trained on problem solving documents) could actually be useful (e.g. could process customer initial query and offer a potential solution that, if not suitable could then transfer to a human)
"You are not too familiar with customer support are you?"
I am VERY familiar with customer Support ... I worked on many support lines all the way up to being a Technical Support Manager for a large US Corporate, in a previous life !!!
P.S.
I also wrote/debugged/tested some of the software first and installed it on real customer hardware which I also commissioned for them.
I saw the issues at all stages of getting the software written and up and running in the real world. !!!
Hence I was able to provide REAL support to customers !!!
You are highlighting the cheap customer support provided by call centres that support whatever they can get a checklist for !!!
Real proper support has people who know the products and can access people who know it inside out i.e. the people who wrote the software etc.
The problem is NOT support centres BUT 'cheaping out' on the level of support that is provided.
I ran a support function with people who knew the hardware/software and were backed up by people who wrote the software and could find and resolve bugs etc.
No checklists other than to get the basic information to establish the problem on the system.
Problems were solved by people that knew the products and could get backup from product experts if the problem was particularly involved.
Never 'turn it off and on again and see if that fixes it !!!'.
AI is being used to replace cheap customer support that everyone finds a pain to access due to its obvious limitations.
AI will not be any more useful UNLESS you can codify EVERY possible issue and fault it is possible to find as a user.
(I will not hold my breath waiting for this !!!)
:)
"Instead we have call centres full of people not that familiar with a given product "
The cheapest places to put those call centers are the ones where people haven't grown up with the things they are supposedly supporting and would have to scrimp and save to get one of their own.
I have a feeling that call centers will all be AI before long. I see it as a dual-edged sword. I often have a hard time understanding "Bob" whose true name is likely one with a more "Indian" flavor to it or Shaniqua who's southern drawl is pretty thick. None of them can parse my description of a problem and need to work through the script before handing me over to a 2nd tier support person since if it was a simple issue, I would have solved the problem long before being put on hold the first time. Being put on hold is also an issue as it comes after every couple of questions or more frequently with on-line chat support. The downside is the point where the AI has gone off into Middle Earth on a quest and won't let one talk to a human.
"Forgot to mention he sadly passed away in 2001."
Machines are stupid. A human would just assume a default of the panelist being alive and able to attend if chosen. With AI, "living" has to be specified. Willing and able to travel must be ticked and it's also important that they aren't suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia, lost the ability to speak, that sort of thing. Choosing Arthur C. Clarke would be problematic. Even before his passing, Arthur wasn't interested in leaving Sri Lanka for any money.
"First and foremost, as chair of the Seattle Worldcon, I sincerely apologize for the use of ChatGPT in our program vetting process," said Bond. "Additionally, I regret releasing a statement that did not address the concerns of our community. My initial statement on the use of AI tools in program vetting was incomplete, flawed, and missed the most crucial points. I acknowledge my mistake and am truly sorry for the harm it caused."
My wetware text parser has just thrown up an over-90% probability that the statement above apologising for the use of ChatGPT was, in fact, written by ChatGPT.
However this statement...
“First, and most importantly, I want to apologize specifically for our use of ChatGPT in the final vetting of selected panelists as explained below,” Morgan wrote. “OpenAI, as a company, has produced its tool by stealing from artists and writers in a way that is certainly immoral, and maybe outright illegal. When it was called to my attention that the vetting team was using this tool, it seemed they had found a solution to a large problem. I should have re-directed them to a different process.”
“Using that tool was a mistake. I approved it, and I am sorry.”
comes up as less than 25% chance of it being completely AI generated, except the third to last sentence, which appears to have been reworded by an AI agent.
I'm getting very sensitised to it nowadays.
I'm less confident about this, mostly because this is a very public apology. Those will have been written and rewritten about a dozen times before they're released. LLMs could have been used, but you could get the same effect by just shopping around the statement to anyone trying to make sure it contains the right amount of contrition, explanation, and buck-passing. I also have a filter which works most of the time when the human-written text was written in one go and at most self-edited. I wouldn't have confidence in my filter on stuff written by a group of humans who are trying not to anger anyone.
PDP-999?
Bit slow today as I couldn't quite how the planet was imperiled. I could understand an author's world might collapse if something systematically half inched his or her etc's creative output but hardly planet destroying.
Of course Levine was referring to the vast quantities of resources and energy that AI/LLM is consuming and is projected to consume.
(I don't suppose JKR can expect an invite. :)
I believe not. From the Theft Act 1968
A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
If you are given permission to take something then it was not dishonestly appropriated, even if you don't intend to return it. It's then a civil matter, not a criminal one.
However, I was very good in previous lives and am therefore not a lawyer.
(I'm so sorry, this got quite long)
These decisions should never be left to a machine, even if there is something of note in a persons past, people do change and should not be permanently shunned for a stupid comment they've sincerely retracted. Some people are shitheads I'd not go to an event they were attending and some are people I'd be critical of but would be still interested in seeing.
As has been said, it's also not fair to take what characters may say in a novel as being the authors actual views.
Machines that have scraped the net just can't make a distinction between some reviewer analysing a character being homophobic, for example, and the authors intention in including such a character.
Fiction should explore things that are controversial or contentious; I'm sure some of you are familiar w the late (and sorely missed) Ian (M) Banks's books, not only the culture novels but also the potentially controversial wasp factory. I'm sure readers will disagree in the interpretation of these works, but I know where I stand (In front of my books, with one shelf that is just Banks).
There should, in my opinion, be an ongoing discussion regarding the up/downsides in excluding a given author from an event for their views. Even taking "ai" out of the equation, its worth being cautious and not turning the dial towards only that which is wholly uncontroversial. It's kitchen counters, not art, that should be sanitised.
To me, the implicit intent of such author research is inclusion. If you don't exclude authors who openly hold regressive views you automatically exclude plenty of authors and attendees.
We need start with the reality of the current moment. The books getting pulled off school shelves in the US aren't from people espousing the enumerated views - it seems to be mostly the work of Women, People of Colour, LGBTQ+ people (etc).
The actual censorship taking place *right now* isn't from the "I'm entitled to my views/I've been cancelled" crowd, no-one is banning "conservative grievance #200" or "the woke lib triggering guide", they are banning The Handmaid's Tale.
https://pen.org/
And, now...
I don't love checking the news on the only tech website I trust and seeing a "debate" in the comments, not about the article itself, but about trans people.
Seeing how some of you are writing, this its an abstract discussion, while I've worked with and know quite a few trans and non-binary people.
I cannot fully express how utterly repugnant your views are, and how very alien they'd sound to every woman (cis and trans) I've worked with.
I've gone to the gym, gone swimming, gone on nights out (etc) with all types of women - The people that make *all* of us feel unsafe are (mostly) cis men loudly proclaiming they want to "defend" some of us by singling out a minority of us.
The "feminists" invoked to justify this aren't even a blip on my radar, I've yet to encounter them when campaigning for abortion rights, fundraising for rape crisis centres (etc).
I've certainly met people in my professional life with regressive views (not just on LGBTQ+ people) and usually the simple exposure to such people is enough to clear up any misconceptions they may have. It's tricky to hate lesbians when you've been having lunch with one for years without knowing (this is an actual example!)
I'm clearly not the only one old enough to remember tabloids full of sensationalist crap about gays and lesbians and it is incredible that some of the same age STILL fall for what is clearly recycled bigotry.
The UK is currently competing with the US to make life as difficult as possible for trans people and a handful of ye are bringing that nonsense into near every article possible.
What compels you to do this?
For some its just boring old misogyny
It takes <2 mins to find in your comments on this website:
"I have long thought that Mumsnet proves how wrong it was to give women the vote"
"Women *are* more likely to get pregnant and have kids, so do you really want to spend time training and money investing in someone who is likely to be a drain on your resources?"
Its very clear you don't give a damn about women.
Any other women who've fallen for this, take a look at the other opinions of men "on your side", you may find yourself in bad company.
Also, consider the significant accomplishments of trans women in computing (including Sophie Wilson and Lynn Conway) you want us to distance ourselves from.
for my own sanity I will not be reading replies.
Recently I had to stop using PayPal as they requested lots of ID from me, as I was now a 'politically exposed person'. I am not, and have never been involved in any politics, local or national. I thought this was very strange but obviously decided to use different payment services rather than comply. I then ask ChatGPT for information on me and it completely fabricates that I am a local councillor. This tells me that large companies are already using AI bullshitters to collate information on customers, so anyone who thinks that it's a good idea to allow AI to provide vetting info for individuals is an idiot or vastly uninformed.
"I am not, and have never been involved in any politics, local or national."
Some years ago I found out that I'm a domestic terrorist. Every segment of every airplane flight I'd take, I would be subjected to extra screening including being pulled aside at the gate. No arrests, no involvement in protests or activist groups. Self-employed owning a manufacturing company making a common product line. I also have a really common name and descend from Scottish/Irish ancestry as far as I can tell. I stopped flying altogether some time ago and now I'm a big advocate for train travel which is so much nicer of an experience. The rest of the time I'll drive as I'm not in a hurry and don't go super long distances. I've already been around the world a bunch of times and visiting friends/family in the UK would be nice, but it would also be great if they came to visit me.
I dropped Paypal when they started getting very activist. It would have been very problematic to have my account locked up for an indefinite time for committing the sin of shopping at a store they don't approve of or buying something they don't think I should have. When a company puts in the T&C's that they fine a customer if they post a negative comment about the company, that's really crossing the line.
Worldcon “muh AI” is functionally the same as good old CIAggle “muh algorithm”, or older tradition of passing the buck to “will of gods” as expressed by a trained bird: a contemptible attempt to discard responsibility for one’s decisions. People counting themselves above primitive savagery would do well to not tolerate this sort of cheeky circus tricks.
I am not his fan, but this time a quote Larry Correia back from 2018 sums it up:
> Ha!
> Told you so.
> Couldn’t have happened to a nicer bunch. Y’all deserve each other.
― https://monsterhunternation.com/2018/07/24/my-official-comment-on-worldcon-2018s-social-justice-cannibal-feeding-frenzy/
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
