2w ago

The Shadow Side of Open Source AI

thecritic.co.uk

The shadow side of open source AI | Octavia Sheepshanks | The Critic Magazine

7 comments

This definitely has some "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children?" vibes to it. But the article says it's a "multifaceted" issue and they give some more details.

Please excuse my a bit more nuanced opinion here, since this might not be the right community for it.
Eric Hartford wrote a good blog article on this very issue.
Main question is, do we want AI to be shaped intransparently by big corporations, and have them shape society and us however they like? Or do "the people" take part in this?
And same argument can be applied to other tech as well: "Linux should be illegal because people can use it to hack computers and send spam." Or the entire internet can be used as a tool for criminal activities. What does that tell us about the internet? This in itself isn't very straightforward in my opinion. It needs to be factored in and regulated. But it's not the same question as should we have AI be part of the world. And outlawing people to take part in this, while other entities can do it, comes with severe implications.
- And same argument can be applied to other tech as well: "Linux should be illegal because people can use it to hack computers and send spam." Or the entire internet can be used as a tool for criminal activities. What does that tell us about the internet? This in itself isn't very straightforward in my opinion. It needs to be factored in and regulated. But it's not the same question as should we have AI be part of the world.
  I was thinking similar when reading the article. Going by the logic proposed in it, GIMP development team should be responsible for which images will get mashed together using it
  
  Yes. I think it's kind of a non sequitur argument. We also regularly don't ban the internet, knifes or an axe or cars - on the basis that they are misused by some people. It either needs a different conclusion that addresses the misuse. Or we need a different argument to prohibit something in general. But this way it's just a fallacy. And the obvious (false) conclusion (without taking it away from companies as well) will be harmful to everyone. So out of all the possibilities to address the problem, please don't do that.

7 comments