https://twitter.com/AiBreakfast/status/1653200105942515712
This means someone can take your video content, alter the language, and repost it, as if they are you.
Not that I have to worry about this! I have far too many repulsive bits. They want pablum.
Whatsapp will allow you to speak in eight languages in a matter of weeks.
Apparently, ChatGDP can now write a book.
I frequently visit a forum dedicated to one particular TV show for snarky banter and creative buffoonery. One member got accused of using ChatGPT to make up replies and comebacks. Old posts from that user that don't use ChatGPT and those that do are like night and day. He was exposed by another member who works in AI and is familiar with the syntax of ChatGPT replies.
@placeboo yes and this is also automated and has been for years (behind the scenes).
It's like "shadowbanning". The people who built my site asked if I would like to have this capability, back in 2005.
For the record, I said, no. I thought it was horrendous - psychological abuse. I said, absolutely not.
@elsa In 2005 !? You kidding, right? I did not have smartphone yet. I did not even know such thing existed. I was using old fashioned flip phone. You saying in 2005 they offered AI automated response feature that could pretend it is you replying ? Or just random bot accounts pretending to be users? The latter is plausible.
@placeboo No, I am saying that people have been getting shadow-banned on the internet as far back as 2005, for sure.
I am saying the people building my site offered to set it up so I could shadow ban people on this blog and in my forum, in 2005. Meaning, I could click their name behind the scenes... they would see their comment but it would be invisible to everyone else.
The person would appear to be being ignored... causing them stress, I'm sure. Eventually, they leave the site, demoralized over the fake rejection.
Understand this site used to be CRAWLING with people, many of them harassed me so this was a solution that was offered to me. I chose to deal with the people on the up and up.
These same people talked to me about "internet governance". I have said this before - they founded their site with Biz Stone who is a co-founder of Twitter.
I know these people and the things I know about because I know these people is real. And I mean, I know them, been to their house, attended their wedding, been to my house, I know them.
That is why I prefer face to face interactions over social media chatter these days. The sheer number of algorithms I go through to engage with another person if I am lucky, or sophisticated AI human impersonator, or just void, makes it a digital lottery.
I heard someone say recently that AI is like what the printing press was for the collective at the time, giving more power to the people.
@buendia and when we really advance, we just push a button and someone will live our lives for us - yay! 😀
@elsa I agree with you, Elsa, it’s not for me. I can see how it was meant, though. For those who want to combat a particular force on a particular playing field, it helps to have the equivalent weaponry.
An average swordsman is no match for an average marksman using firepower. And so on.
@buendia it's manipulation to a degree. Should I have AI write posts all day and post them here and then get rich?
False promise in my mind.
@elsa definitely, I get what you mean. It’s clear to me, too, how this can be used dishonestly.
But what about generating an image to convey a certain idea, while being upfront that it was generated by AI? Is that different, from a meme or a photograph, etc? The idea would be original to you, and your intent would be clear—to communicate an idea.
What if this occurred during a lockdown when someone was unable to find a subject to photograph, and or didn’t have access to various art supplies?
Going back to the printing press, so many were opposed to the idea of people having to access to the Bible, and interpreting it themselves. We can even see the negative effects from that today. Some people do interpret the Bible in bad faith. The myriad interpretations have caused a shitshow ever since. But was it altogether bad? Should it not have happened? Some might say yes. What about the internet? What about modern medicine? We can apply it to all levels of progress—two steps forward, one (or more) steps back.
I’m not disagreeing with you at all, just trying to see what else could be on the table.