I don’t like how they are using AI as an excuse to argue for increased censorship, what difference does it make what type of software the computer is giving information from?
This is a potentially sneaky way of getting around freedom of speech, by somehow arguing that if an idea is recycled by a language model it is suddenly OK to censor it, as long as you’re a few degrees of separation from the original blog.
What the heck else is post-truth supposed to mean??
Eh, this is far messier than you're making it out to be and something that was never thought of when our laws were created. Had human level AI agents existed at the time we wrote the constitution I can assure you it would have been written different.
For example, our conversation now. You take for granted it's between two humans, in fact you likely assume it's from someone in your own country. And based on the contents of our conversation, if we can sway each other, that the outcome of this conversation may determine how you vote in a representational democracy.
But instead lets say that I am a non-human entity. My entire existence is dictated by a script that says "manipulate luxuryballs to the following political views'. I never tell you I'm a bot, and my disguise is one of a near perfect human simulant. You think I went fishing last week. But I'll never feel. Never care. Never vote. "My" entire existence is one of hundreds of millions of political manipulation bots bought and paid for by whoever has the wealth.
This is what is coming and it's only going to get far worse.
it just sounds like it’s going to get a lot noisier out there as the cost of effectively propagandizing someone will plummet, I think more than anything this will simply devalue all kinds of behavior like that, but I think most people recognize, when it comes to censorship, that very convenient political musings will be used to justify masking any inconvenient truths that an AI may uncover, that will be the most risky “post-truth” reality if we let it happen, the ministry of truth will materialize under the guise of “common sense protection against AI”
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
> What the heck else is post-truth supposed to mean??
An environment where it's become difficult to tell what is true and what isn't. You could also phrase it as, what's real and what isn't. An epistemic crisis. I think we crossed into a post-truth world 7 or 8 years ago (it's been in process for at least a couple of decades) so it's not like AI precipitated this crisis, but it will accelerate it to new levels.
Right, we already live in a post-truth world where it's politicians and journalists who omit or twist facts to support their agenda. It's not just politicians and journalists who do this, but they tend to have the most reach and influence on average.
By that definition, we've always been in a post-truth world.
Yes, access to truth lies on a spectrum. Post-truth references pop up in this moment particularly due to the quantum leap in dis/misinformation. Any layperson, anywhere, can soon convincingly fabricate media of nearly any form: images, video, audio, legit-looking websites, etc. To me, it's justifiable to regard 2023 as an inflection point for truth. My predictions are less catastrophic than many worried folk, but I definitely see why the post-truth moniker is appropriate. Crazy times!
This is a potentially sneaky way of getting around freedom of speech, by somehow arguing that if an idea is recycled by a language model it is suddenly OK to censor it, as long as you’re a few degrees of separation from the original blog.
What the heck else is post-truth supposed to mean??