And if AI leads to a situation in which the very ability to separate factual reporting from propaganda is almost entirely destroyed for anyone besides those in control of it, will you still be fine with it then?
Pointing to a system with problems and then saying you have no issue with something that has the potential to be orders of magnitude more problematic seems an odd approach to me.
Those in control of it aren't able to distinguish factual reporting today. Remember a few months ago when all the so called "reputable" news was screaming about an alleged terror attack against the UN that was caught, and it turned out to be nothing but a basic SMS fraud operation? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn4w0d8zz22o
> Those in control of it aren't able to distinguish factual reporting today.
Can't tell if you're referring to media outlets or AI companies here.
I do remember this incident - it was an embarrassment for the outlets that jumped on that story. Especially because the general public has come to know there is a overriding tendency towards sensationalism.
But surely this is very different from actual outright propaganda operations?
I'm talking about the media companies. AI companies aren't any better at it, but at least they don't go around sanctimoniously claiming to be the source of truth in the same way as journalists do.
And it isn't different than outright propaganda operations because it is an outright propaganda operation. If you read the link in my comment, you will see that the report is just repeating claims from the government nearly verbatim.
I'm not going to take up the mantle of trying to dissuade you from your beliefs, but needless to say if you think that equating CNNs sensationalism-for-views model with the likes of Musk actively trying to dismantle Wikipedia [0] because he wants to rewrite reality (nevermind what Grok is currently doing [1]), then you need to have a hard look in the mirror.
Ok, that's a little better. The first link was just referring to him starting his own. I still think "dismantle" is not an accurate description for asking people not to fund it, but it's within margin of error. I'm paywalled, though, so can't read the whole thing.
"Charitable" is irrelevant to my reference because "competitor" is a term completely devoid of any indication of the quality of the product.
> The first link was just referring to him starting his own.
He's pushing a platform that uses AI to generate content that's riddled with far-right misinformation. The context for him doing this is because he didn't like that Wikipedia now chronicles the very real fact that he made a Nazi salute. This doesn't constitute just starting an alternative, this is actively pushing an agenda of misinformation, while demonizing platforms that he doesn't like. He can't buy Wikipedia like he did with Twitter, so he's pushing to undermine & harm it, via defunding or other means (see government threats to "investigate" while Musk was running DOGE).
> "Charitable" is irrelevant to my reference because "competitor" is a term completely devoid of any indication of the quality of the product.
I was being nice; your characterizing of Musk's platform as a genuine "competitor" is BS. Every indication is that he's doing this because he wants to choose what constitutes fact and what doesn't.
Not if I can identify it, which I fear is going to become a harder task in the future.
> If AI leads to decentralisation of press, it sounds better to me.
Seems optimistic to me, given the trend with pretty much everything AI since ChatGPT was announced is concentrating as much power as possible in the hands of a few big tech companies.
As an added example: decentralization was a big promise of crypto; at present, hard for me to see how that's lived up to the promise. I don't see how the current trend with the hands of control over AI will work out any better in this regard.
> Local AI exist as well. It's just hard to measure it.
Yeah but you're not going to get your news from local AI, are you? you have to connect it to the internet and look up news for you, but if a lot of what's found online is AI generated and there isn't a clear way to distinguish it, then how are you better off?
> Whats wrong with crypto decentralisation?
It hasn't really happened? To my knowledge, a large proportion of crypto volumes are going through a handful of centralised exchanges. Traditional finance sector is also increasing its presence/hold.
I find consumption of AI generated news useless. My reaction was primarily for decentralisation of AI generated tools.
I don't have numbers for crypto but auctions are not only way to buy crypto. And they do not have power to regulate value. Isn't that a sign of decentralization?
Pointing to a system with problems and then saying you have no issue with something that has the potential to be orders of magnitude more problematic seems an odd approach to me.