Also, reminder that if an expert asserts "after looking at this thing, I can conclude X", whether that expert is a human or a machine, they should be able to point out what evidence they found and why it is good evidence. If they can't do that, don't trust them.
ETHICS
-
Licensing concerns for AI training data sources
By
–
I can’t look at this now without wondering at least a little about whether the sources have been licensed. https://t.co/1QBe47J6VB
— Gary Marcus (@GaryMarcus) 7 janvier 2024I can’t look at this now without wondering at least a little about whether the sources have been licensed.
-
Augmentation over replication: moving beyond the Turing trap
By
–
I lean towards augmentation since it implies new things, not just more of the same. https://
digitaleconomy.stanford.edu/news/the-turin
g-trap-the-promise-peril-of-human-like-artificial-intelligence/
… -
ML Systems Cannot Magically Recover Hidden Information
By
–
A prevalent cognitive fallacy around ML systems is the belief that they can magically recover hidden information that is out of reach for human experts — "the AI detected that those Apollo pictures are fake!", "the AI can predict if the person in the picture is a criminal!",
-
Understanding Copyright Law: Key Misconceptions Explained
By
–
If you want to understand copyright law, you should (a) start actually reading some of the law and (b) read @Blanketman_01
’s patient but systematic dismantling of numerous misunderstandings of copyright law, in his posts over the last several days. https://
x.com/Blanketman_01/
/Blanketman_01/status/1744066781038493893
… -
Gold Intelligence Augmentation Douglas Engelbart Vision
By
–
Or intelligence augmentation per Douglas Engelbart
-
VCR Licensing Precedent: Legal Considerations for Hardware Manufacturers
By
–
it would have been a relative precedent, had they preloaded the VCR with unlicensed content. but *those* guys had the good sense not to.
-
LLMs and Humans Have Different Strengths and Weaknesses
By
–
True. But to be more precise, they each have very different strengths and weaknesses. No way I could “read” as many books as an LLM does.
-
Legal dispute acknowledges AI infringement basis implicitly
By
–
Re “main use case”, i can imagine a reply like this: “You just said a lot of time it doesn’t infringe. I agree. But you have thereby also just implicitly acknowledged that sometimes it does infringe. Now that you have acknowledged the fundamental premise of my suit is true,
-
Ethical concerns about influential AI figures and power dynamics
By
–
you don’t think calling me a grifter etc was lower? did you read his tweet that prompted me to block him? Or the arguments i made her in this thread for why I do in fact find him to be dangerous, given his lack of ethics combined with his power?