- [deleted]@piefed.worldEnglish4 hours
The actual headline on the page is shorter and clearer than the link title.
Meta Paid Hundreds of Contractors to Pretend to Be Teenagers While Barraging Its Competitors’ AI With Disturbing Content
Probably changed since they don’t match.
4 hoursJust reading the headline and giving the benefit of the doubt (haha to meta), my first thought was, “well it’s a good thing to stress test your product before actually teens with problems use it”. This way you could get some bugs worked out and fix the AI before someone hurts themself or others.
After reading the article, that is not what they used it for. Meta, of course, was just trying some old fashion corporate sabotage and trying to bring down other companies with this bullshit. All without the other companies knowing. Could any of this data be used to fix kids trying to hide bulimia or wanting to know what a baby tastes like? Probably not.
- 4 hours
Zucc needs to be sealed in his bunker and cemented over
- 2 hours
He does very much need to have the corporate veil pierced for his actions with regards to Meta and some actual investigations done of his own personal behavior, because dude is very clearly endorsing some behavior that he realistically might be thrown in prison for.
- Jaderick@lemmy.worldEnglish4 hours
This seems like it’s Meta testing the boundaries of contemporary chatbots so they can refine their stuff so they don’t continually get sued. Given the absurdness of modernity, where people are using these bots in-lieu of other social interactions, this seems like a worthwhile stress test. Assuming they share the findings and don’t sell them which is likely asking too much of a corp.
This article, and especially the headline, seems like it’s fearmongering without substance. It’s like the headlines from anti-science tabloids describing an research article in the most biased terms possible. Thus, this article leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Am I missing something?
Edit: related article(https://www.engadget.com/2209332/meta-is-facing-1-4-trillion-in-state-lawsuits-over-social-media-addiction/)
- atrielienz@lemmy.worldEnglish3 hours
If (and that if is doing so much heavy lifting) they actually were probing their own AI this way, your point might be valid. But doing it secretly while still saying that AI is safe to use (like so many AI companies have done) is disingenuous.
What the article says is that Meta was directing contractors to do this to their competitors AI.
- Jaderick@lemmy.worldEnglish3 hours
This comment contexualizes Meta‘s propaganda about AI, which the article doesn’t do. Mentioning Meta‘s AI blitz along with the secretive nature of this would have strengthened the article IMO.
Appreciated.
- SpaceNoodle@lemmy.worldEnglish4 hours
Not only has Zuck not earned the benefit of the doubt, that’s clearly not what the article says.
- Jaderick@lemmy.worldEnglish3 hours
The article clearly says very little, except this:
But what Meta did with all this data is unclear.
No shit Zuck doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. The point is this article says very little and reads like a Fox News quality fear piece. Futurism is better than that.
