Re: What the Feds wanted
I imagine he took more of an interest in US Federal criminal prosecution than a person picked at random
994 publicly visible posts • joined 12 Jun 2009
Last year Zen were the biggest of the non-shit providers, maybe you can reach 1% if you add them all together. So the share of the broadband market is a tiny niche of a huge market.
The size of the niche will be different in other lines of business.
https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/studies/broadband-statistics/
"Is he trying to differentiate between info that is wrong as an honest mistake, and deliberate misinformation. And then claiming that if the wrong statement is made by a chatbot, it is *deliberately* misinformation, a priori?"
Is a wrong statement is given by a chatbot it is *recklessly* wrong. Whoever decided to use the chatbot either knew it would spew out a load of crap, or should have done.
You can't call information coming from a chatbot deliberately wrong, dishonest or an honest mistake - it does not have a mind that can be deliberate, dishonest or honest.
The idea that I am trying to get at is that companies shouldn't be able to avoid responsibility for their mistakes by getting a bot to make them for it, then claiming the bot didn't have mens rea, so there can't be legal consequences for its actions.
I'm afraid that simpletons will believe that the results that come out of LLMs are accurate, and that it will negatively affect my life and the lives of others.
I'm afraid that simpletons will believe claims about how other AI products work, and that it will negatively affect my lives of others.
I'm afraid that simpletons will believe claims about how other AI products work, and that money and time will be channeled toward the snake oil peddlers, instead of being used for something useful.
"Wray cited an example he's used previously about how, last year, Section 702 of America's Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allowed the FBI to observe Chinese government snoops trying to break into an unnamed US transportation hub and take action."
Did he cite a reason that they couldn't have asked for a warrant to observe the spooks?
"Channel 1 promised all AI-generated imagery will be labeled as such."
'adding "we are aware that the videos will be copied, the labels will be removed, and they will be reposted with claims they are real footage. But that's not our problem" '
"The LA-based virtual station claims all news it presents will be fact-checked by humans to ensure accuracy before being placed in the virtual mouths of its artificial newsreaders. "
Qualified humans? Or randos with no subject knowledge
"he attempted a repair of that machine.
It did not."
'It did not' meaning 'the machine did not repair'
But it does seem wrong. Maybe because the subject changes between sentences ("he attempted to see if the machine bounced. It did not" would be fine), or maybe it's because of some other susiedentery that we all know, but can't express.