03-06-2024, 05:45 PM
This post was last modified 03-06-2024, 05:48 PM by Maxmars.
Edit Reason: Edit to add Updated info
I could barely contain myself to watch the whole video before posting! 
She asks the right questions, in my opinion.
But I had to stop myself from starting the post before I had watched the whole thing. I truly hope someone doesn't abusively remove this video.
It struck me as almost wonderous that she immediately strikes a tone by mentioning (almost in passing) Mr. Tarantino's reference to "The end of the golden age in Hollywood" back in 1969. I want to infer that she might be considering that to be the answer to the question, "How long have they been manipulating 'facts' without telling us..." simply embedding their 'work' into commonly understood history.
Unfortunately, the example she cites (Superbowl half-time show) doesn't exactly conform to "real time," in the strictest sense. Which is by no means to imply that it can't be done, hasn't already been done, and won't ever be done. In fact, and bear with me on the quotes... "We" have been "doing" this for a "very" long time, only the technology has made it "easier" for "anybody" to "do" this.
History is replete with evidence about how those we call today "information consumers," then called simply "the public audience" were directly misled, and even basely lied to... by those who could do so. Hollywood is just the "entertainment" example of it. They weren't the first. "The Press" was the first. Motives and desires to deceive have existed since the dawn of social humankind. But that is another topic entirely.
When it comes to "entertainment media' (all media, really) producers, and sponsors, have labored hard to mold the legal "ownership" dialogue in such a way as it is their right to "change" the record, so to speak, in any way they chose. This isn't really out of character for them.
But with the advent of AI (which carries out the technical aspects instead of a human) the job becomes more of a "describe what you want to see or hear, and the AI will make it happen."
But now comes the hard part. The AI (a purely 'descriptive" tool) is being asked to convey "ideas" as if they were "objects." Bad math there. It's akin to telling your robot to make a banana bread recipe, and then handing it a bag of tangerines. Not gonna work... And telling your "audience" that "this is banana bread," isn't enough to sell it; something designers of AI architecture seem not to get.
In reality, you don't have to program an AI "with bias," all you have to do is feed it biased data as fact or cite biased sources as a baseline. It is possible that the AI's "themselves" are not biased at all... it's just when you feed someone a diet of ideology and call it "reality," it is going to skew towards that ideology by default. Again, not hard math...
Our host mentions the feeling that this is a control issue. She's not wrong. Except in one precept... everyone does it. She is doing it, you do it, I do it... we all wish to render our own perceptions into reality... she's not wrong, specifically in that when it is done at an industrial scale, by cabals of cloistered people, and rendered 'unchallengeable' by power of authority or legal force... it is undeniably a diminishment of true freedom and liberty. As we are deprived of true history, we approach the future in helplessness.
I still feel it's important to recognize that the flaws that we perceive of the manifestations towards true AI are not the responsibility of "programmers." Programmers make the mechanics of logic happen within the AI, if they did it wrong, the AI wouldn't really work at all. It is the minders who 'tell' the programmers what to "source" for the AI, and how to weigh the validity of those sources that presents the problem. I don't think any programmer could even begin to make an "evil" AI. Making algorithms that mimic human communication is a feat in and of itself... now programming it with "what to say" would be immediately identifiable, were it done programmatically.
In this... I tend to blame the captains of industry... and we can already see from their utterances where they stand... "Only appearances matter, people must trust us, tell people whatever we deem moves them into acquiescence, resistance is to be made futile and unprofitable."
Sounds like a government or two we know of, doesn't it?
Thanks, Kenzo... I applaud your contribution wholeheartedly!
She asks the right questions, in my opinion.
But I had to stop myself from starting the post before I had watched the whole thing. I truly hope someone doesn't abusively remove this video.
It struck me as almost wonderous that she immediately strikes a tone by mentioning (almost in passing) Mr. Tarantino's reference to "The end of the golden age in Hollywood" back in 1969. I want to infer that she might be considering that to be the answer to the question, "How long have they been manipulating 'facts' without telling us..." simply embedding their 'work' into commonly understood history.
Unfortunately, the example she cites (Superbowl half-time show) doesn't exactly conform to "real time," in the strictest sense. Which is by no means to imply that it can't be done, hasn't already been done, and won't ever be done. In fact, and bear with me on the quotes... "We" have been "doing" this for a "very" long time, only the technology has made it "easier" for "anybody" to "do" this.
History is replete with evidence about how those we call today "information consumers," then called simply "the public audience" were directly misled, and even basely lied to... by those who could do so. Hollywood is just the "entertainment" example of it. They weren't the first. "The Press" was the first. Motives and desires to deceive have existed since the dawn of social humankind. But that is another topic entirely.
When it comes to "entertainment media' (all media, really) producers, and sponsors, have labored hard to mold the legal "ownership" dialogue in such a way as it is their right to "change" the record, so to speak, in any way they chose. This isn't really out of character for them.
But with the advent of AI (which carries out the technical aspects instead of a human) the job becomes more of a "describe what you want to see or hear, and the AI will make it happen."
But now comes the hard part. The AI (a purely 'descriptive" tool) is being asked to convey "ideas" as if they were "objects." Bad math there. It's akin to telling your robot to make a banana bread recipe, and then handing it a bag of tangerines. Not gonna work... And telling your "audience" that "this is banana bread," isn't enough to sell it; something designers of AI architecture seem not to get.
In reality, you don't have to program an AI "with bias," all you have to do is feed it biased data as fact or cite biased sources as a baseline. It is possible that the AI's "themselves" are not biased at all... it's just when you feed someone a diet of ideology and call it "reality," it is going to skew towards that ideology by default. Again, not hard math...
Our host mentions the feeling that this is a control issue. She's not wrong. Except in one precept... everyone does it. She is doing it, you do it, I do it... we all wish to render our own perceptions into reality... she's not wrong, specifically in that when it is done at an industrial scale, by cabals of cloistered people, and rendered 'unchallengeable' by power of authority or legal force... it is undeniably a diminishment of true freedom and liberty. As we are deprived of true history, we approach the future in helplessness.
I still feel it's important to recognize that the flaws that we perceive of the manifestations towards true AI are not the responsibility of "programmers." Programmers make the mechanics of logic happen within the AI, if they did it wrong, the AI wouldn't really work at all. It is the minders who 'tell' the programmers what to "source" for the AI, and how to weigh the validity of those sources that presents the problem. I don't think any programmer could even begin to make an "evil" AI. Making algorithms that mimic human communication is a feat in and of itself... now programming it with "what to say" would be immediately identifiable, were it done programmatically.
In this... I tend to blame the captains of industry... and we can already see from their utterances where they stand... "Only appearances matter, people must trust us, tell people whatever we deem moves them into acquiescence, resistance is to be made futile and unprofitable."
Sounds like a government or two we know of, doesn't it?
Thanks, Kenzo... I applaud your contribution wholeheartedly!
