Technology

He means they must insert ideological bias on his behalf.

While I do prefer absolute free speech for individuals, I have no illusions about what Trump is saying behind closed doors: "Make it like me, and everything that I do." I don't want an government to decide for me and others what is right.

Also, science, at least the peer reviewed stuff, should be considered free of bias. Real world mechanics, be it physics or biology, can't be considered biased. We need science, because it makes life better. A false science, such as phrenology or RFK's la-la-land ravings, needs to be discarded because it doesn't help anyone. Not even the believers.

AI is not your friend.

Le Chat by Mistral is a France-based (and EU abiding) alternative to ChatGPT. Works fine for me so far.

eliminates mention of “AI safety”

AI datasets tend to have a white bias. White people are over-represented in photographs, for instance. If one trains AI to with such datasets in something like facial recognition( with mostly white faces), it will be less likely to identify non-white people as human. Combine this with self-driving cars and you have a recipe for disaster; since AI is bad at detecting non-white people, it is less likely to prevent them from being crushed underneath in an accident. This both stupid and evil. You cannot always account for any unconscious bias in datasets.

“reducing ideological bias, to enable human flourishing and economic competitiveness.”

They will fill it with capitalist Red Scare propaganda.

The new agreement removes mention of developing tools “for authenticating content and tracking its provenance” as well as “labeling synthetic content,” signaling less interest in tracking misinformation and deep fakes.

Interesting.

“The AI future is not going to be won by hand-wringing about safety,” Vance told attendees from around the world.

That was done before. A chatbot named Tay was released into the wilds of twitter in 2016 without much 'hand-wringing about safety'. It turned into a neo-Nazi, which, I suppose is just what Edolf Musk wants.

The researcher who warned that the change in focus could make AI more unfair and unsafe also alleges that many AI researchers have cozied up to Republicans and their backers in an effort to still have a seat at the table when it comes to discussing AI safety. “I hope they start realizing that these people and their corporate backers are face-eating leopards who only care about power,” the researcher says.

Well the rest of the world can take the lead in scientific r&d now that the US has not only declared itself failed culturally but politically and are attacking scientific institutions and funding directly (NIH, universities, etc).

Trump doing this shit reminds me of when the Germans demanded all research on physics, relativity, and thankfully the atomic bomb, stop because they were "Jewish Pseudoscience" in Hitler's eyes

Grok is still woke!!!!

Literally 1984.

This is a textbook example of newspeak / doublethink, exactly how they use the word “corruption” to mean different things based on who it’s being applied to.

Why should we have ideals anymore? Wallowing in the muck is almost paradise. /s

Any meaningful suppression or removal of ideological bias is an ideological bias.

I propose a necessary precursor to the development of artificial intelligence is the discovery and identification of a natural instance.

So, models may only be trained on sufficiently bigoted data sets?

I hope this backfires. Research shows there's a white & anti-blackness (and white-supremacist) bias in many AI models (see chatgpt's response to israeli vs palestinian questions).

An unbiased model would be much more pro-palestine and pro-blm

"Sir, that's impossible."

"JUST DO IT!"

It’s almost like reality has a liberal bias. 🙃