“While these uses of GenAI are often neither overtly malicious nor explicitly violate these tools’ content policies or terms of services, their potential for harm is significant.”
  • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
    5·
    4 months ago

    Hello, I have downvoted your post!

    Reasons include:

    • stupid fucking clickbait title
    • sharing information that was otherwise already obvious to everyone for the past 2 years
    • quoting elon musk they’re actually denigrating elon and I can’t read lol
    • TehPers@beehaw.orgEnglish
      1·
      4 months ago

      Not sure if you’re aware so I’ll mention it anyway, but as far as I know, downvotes in Beehaw communities don’t federate to Beehaw (as in aren’t applied here - you might see them on your instance though, not really sure). That being said, your comment does, so you’ve made a “pseudo-downvote” anyway.

    • Ilandar@aussie.zoneOP
      1·
      4 months ago

      The title is not mine and the paper the article is responding to was published last month, not two years ago as you claim. The only mention of Musk in the entire article is in this one sentence:

      Unlike self-serving warnings from Open AI CEO Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity, Google’s research focuses on real harm that generative AI is currently causing and could get worse in the future.

        • AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          0·
          4 months ago

          “Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity”

          The full quote is “UNLIKE self-serving warnings from Sam Altman or Elon Musk about the “existential risk” artificial general intelligence poses to humanity”. In other words, they’re actively denigrating Musk and Altman, and you’ve taken the quote entirely out of context, in direct opposite to the original meaning.

  • its_me_xiphos@beehaw.org
    3·
    4 months ago

    I’m not reading the article but instead trying to be amusing. If it breaks the reality, please put me in a new one with really good scotch, healthy knees, and a spirit of adventure!

  • tardigrada@beehaw.org
    3·
    4 months ago

    I haven’t read this article as the statement is simply wrong. AI is just a technology. What it does (and doesn’t) depends on how it is used, and this in turn depends on human decision making.

    What Google does here is -once again- denying responsibilty. If I’d be using a tool that says you should put glue on your pizza, then it’s me who is responsible, not the tool. It’s not the weapon that kilks, it’s the human being who pulls the trigger.

  • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.netEnglish
    1·
    4 months ago

    We didn’t even have AI when the Internet became flooded with faked images and videos, and those actually are incredibly hard to tell are fake. AI generated images still has very obvious tells that it’s fake if you scrutinize them even a little bit. And video is so bad right now, you don’t have to do anything but have functioning sight to notice it’s not real.

  • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
    1·
    4 months ago

    generative AI makes it very easy for anyone to flood the internet with generated text, audio, images, and videos.

    And? There’s already way too much data online to read or watch all of it. We could just move to a “watermark” system where everyone takes credit for their contributions. Things without watermarks could just be dismissed, since they have as much authority as an anonymous comment.