Can the AI haters give it a rest already?
-
@JustinMac84 You realize the US only wanted to shut TikTok down because they wouldn't sell to Oracle, right? IT's why they no longer want to shut TikTok down. Did you happen to read what I linked you to? Because even the experts can't agree social media is addictive. What's happening is we've trained ourselves to see things that way, so they are. 2% of adult social media users actually display the signs of addiction, but 18% will say they think they're addicted. Tell yourself something often enough it'll become true.
@quanin Still processing the article, but a brief summary of my ramblings is why not simultaneously punish the companies, i.e. the trial is right, and empower the users, i.e. change the language and advanced coping strategies offered to users?
-
@quanin Caught up now with this post. Yes I know the motivation behind that case, but that doesn't mean the internal memos cited don't exist. If a company is trying to develop a platform that will be so habit-forming as to discourage physical movement, my best memory of the quote from the memo I heard on NPR's Up First, how else can you describe that big tech behaviour other than misanthropic and counter to users' interests and health.
@JustinMac84 Okay, so maybe that's why TikTok built its app. And if that's true, then TikTok and its executives belong in jail. But that's not why every social media company built theier app. You're ascribing an admission by one platform to all of them. That's absolutist, and wanting to set fire to the forest because of one tree.
-
@JustinMac84 Okay, so maybe that's why TikTok built its app. And if that's true, then TikTok and its executives belong in jail. But that's not why every social media company built theier app. You're ascribing an admission by one platform to all of them. That's absolutist, and wanting to set fire to the forest because of one tree.
@quanin Facebook execs have admitted the same in the book I cited. I've seen posts by x-google employees saying they've made their apps addictive. I have, myself, fallen pray to obviously bad faith architecture in Alexa games and have seen other people do the same. Obviously some of the onus is on users, both to behave safely and not be disempowered by those around them, but I would say a greater onus is for devs not to willfully exploit vulnerability.
-
@quanin Still processing the article, but a brief summary of my ramblings is why not simultaneously punish the companies, i.e. the trial is right, and empower the users, i.e. change the language and advanced coping strategies offered to users?
@JustinMac84 Because we don't know the trial is right. We do know that TikTok settled, but that tells us only about how TikTok sees its chances. A big problem with this whole situation is social media addiction isn't clinically recognized. So we don't even know by what standard people are being called addicted. You and I on this platform right now, are we addicted? I don't think so, but someone else might.
-
@JustinMac84 Okay, so maybe that's why TikTok built its app. And if that's true, then TikTok and its executives belong in jail. But that's not why every social media company built theier app. You're ascribing an admission by one platform to all of them. That's absolutist, and wanting to set fire to the forest because of one tree.
@quanin empower the user, censure the predator. These things are not mutually exclusive and we should be putting all our effort behind both.
-
@JustinMac84 And I return to the original point of the thread. If we refused to use every device that was to our benefit because we had concerns, we'd get absolutely nowhere. People have concerns about video games. Should we stop using those, or should we address and/or disprove those concerns? People have concerns about microwaves. Should we stop using those? People have concerns about wifi. Should we stop using that? The list, she goes on.
@quanin @JustinMac84 Oh cuh riste. And heeeeeere we goooooo! Because, you know, the whole reason I use AI to, you know, read things? Is because the people around me do a shitty job of it. And I don't want people, you know, reading my mail. So, like, what do I do then? Make the government hire a special helpyperson to come do it for me? '
-
@quanin empower the user, censure the predator. These things are not mutually exclusive and we should be putting all our effort behind both.
@JustinMac84 We're not talking about drug dealers, here. No one's being prayed on. And I'm going to ask again, what is social media giving these people that society isn't? When you're trying to escape something, anything can be seen as addictive. video games, social media, antisocial behaviour... pick one. If a 16-year-old can't talk about their anxiety issue to mom and dad, they're still gonna talk about it. But it's gonna be on Facebook. You may not agree, but then, it's on you to do better.
-
@JustinMac84 Because we don't know the trial is right. We do know that TikTok settled, but that tells us only about how TikTok sees its chances. A big problem with this whole situation is social media addiction isn't clinically recognized. So we don't even know by what standard people are being called addicted. You and I on this platform right now, are we addicted? I don't think so, but someone else might.
@quanin To me, if execs knew that what they were putting out was likely to cause harm as the memos and statements indicate, if they knew and intended that their apps should have such a pull as to make it difficult for people to pull away from to do other essential activities, that's culpability, that's reprehensible and should be stopped. Will juries and lawyers agree? Time will tell, but that's my take on it.
-
@quanin @JustinMac84 Oh cuh riste. And heeeeeere we goooooo! Because, you know, the whole reason I use AI to, you know, read things? Is because the people around me do a shitty job of it. And I don't want people, you know, reading my mail. So, like, what do I do then? Make the government hire a special helpyperson to come do it for me? '
@Meepercat @quanin If the other negatives of AI I have cited in this thread don't sway you, this article may be of interest as a succinct reply to your specific question. https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/03/03/what-privacy-as-expected-meta-ray-bans-are-a-privacy-disaster?utm_medium=social&utm_source=mastodon
-
@quanin To me, if execs knew that what they were putting out was likely to cause harm as the memos and statements indicate, if they knew and intended that their apps should have such a pull as to make it difficult for people to pull away from to do other essential activities, that's culpability, that's reprehensible and should be stopped. Will juries and lawyers agree? Time will tell, but that's my take on it.
@JustinMac84 Everything is likely to cause harm, Justin. Literally everything. Getting in the car with someone is likely to cause harm, even with the regulations in place. Should we ban cars? A whole bunch of people were actually harmed when Covid hit. Should we ban social gatherings? Social media and AI have become today's rock and roll, being blamed for all of society's ills. But here's the thing. All of society's ills existed before social media and AI, and they'll exist after social media and AI are gone. At that point, we'll move on to blame something else for their existence.
-
@JustinMac84 We're not talking about drug dealers, here. No one's being prayed on. And I'm going to ask again, what is social media giving these people that society isn't? When you're trying to escape something, anything can be seen as addictive. video games, social media, antisocial behaviour... pick one. If a 16-year-old can't talk about their anxiety issue to mom and dad, they're still gonna talk about it. But it's gonna be on Facebook. You may not agree, but then, it's on you to do better.
@quanin Isn't it praying on people if you deliberately build something that is going to exploit someone else's vulnerability. I take your point, if people's lives were perfect, they wouldn't reach for anything addictive and harmful, but that doesn't justify the deliberate production of something addictive and harmful.
-
@JustinMac84 Everything is likely to cause harm, Justin. Literally everything. Getting in the car with someone is likely to cause harm, even with the regulations in place. Should we ban cars? A whole bunch of people were actually harmed when Covid hit. Should we ban social gatherings? Social media and AI have become today's rock and roll, being blamed for all of society's ills. But here's the thing. All of society's ills existed before social media and AI, and they'll exist after social media and AI are gone. At that point, we'll move on to blame something else for their existence.
@quanin that's a flawed argument. If I have two ways to build something and I deliberately, despite warnings and discussion, pick the more exploitative, that's on me. There are degrees, both in terms of severity and likelihood of harm. You've lost me there.
-
@quanin Isn't it praying on people if you deliberately build something that is going to exploit someone else's vulnerability. I take your point, if people's lives were perfect, they wouldn't reach for anything addictive and harmful, but that doesn't justify the deliberate production of something addictive and harmful.
@JustinMac84 I'd argue that no one set out to build something that was harmful or addictive. I sincerely doubt that was Zuckerbirg's goal when he started Facebook. Again, we're not talking alcohol or drugs here. But this is why I need to ask. Are these people actually addicted, or is their world just that much of a dumpster fire that this is better? And this is why I brought up Covid as an example. Yes, Covid in and of itself was harmful. But the lockdowns lead to more people becoming terminally online, which is arguably more harmful. Were they addicted to being online, or was their offline world just that bad?
-
@JustinMac84 Everything is likely to cause harm, Justin. Literally everything. Getting in the car with someone is likely to cause harm, even with the regulations in place. Should we ban cars? A whole bunch of people were actually harmed when Covid hit. Should we ban social gatherings? Social media and AI have become today's rock and roll, being blamed for all of society's ills. But here's the thing. All of society's ills existed before social media and AI, and they'll exist after social media and AI are gone. At that point, we'll move on to blame something else for their existence.
@quanin I can invite you to my house for a cup of tea in the hope that you might want to come back. Or I can spike your tea with something addictive, put superglue on your chair or build a trapdoor that will make you fall down to my cellar. I think it's pretty obvious that only one of those options is appropriate.
-
@Meepercat @quanin If the other negatives of AI I have cited in this thread don't sway you, this article may be of interest as a succinct reply to your specific question. https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/03/03/what-privacy-as-expected-meta-ray-bans-are-a-privacy-disaster?utm_medium=social&utm_source=mastodon
@JustinMac84 @quanin News briefing: *Everything* is a fucking privacy disaster. Because our data can get stolen. From anywhere. The data your phone company has on you? Yeah. You think that's private? No, sorry. Your medical records? Health insurance info? That data can get stolen too. I'm not worried about my Meta glasses telling me there's... a bottle of Mountain Dew on my desk. Because anyone anywhere who knows anything about me? Knows that. So you, good sir, can take your scare tactics and your bullshit and shove them directly in your left auricular orifice.
-
@quanin I can invite you to my house for a cup of tea in the hope that you might want to come back. Or I can spike your tea with something addictive, put superglue on your chair or build a trapdoor that will make you fall down to my cellar. I think it's pretty obvious that only one of those options is appropriate.
@JustinMac84 The problem isn't that I might want to come back. The problem is when I won't leave. You don't have to trap me there in order for me to decide that I like it much better there. What's happening at my house that that's a viable option for me? No one wants to ask that question. So instead, they blame you for keeping me there.
-
@JustinMac84 @quanin News briefing: *Everything* is a fucking privacy disaster. Because our data can get stolen. From anywhere. The data your phone company has on you? Yeah. You think that's private? No, sorry. Your medical records? Health insurance info? That data can get stolen too. I'm not worried about my Meta glasses telling me there's... a bottle of Mountain Dew on my desk. Because anyone anywhere who knows anything about me? Knows that. So you, good sir, can take your scare tactics and your bullshit and shove them directly in your left auricular orifice.
@Meepercat @quanin um wow. there's really no need to be rude. I would argue that there's a difference between your data being stolen by an unauthorised bad actor and that bad actor being your service provider. The information is there. It's for you to do what you like with it. You asked a question. I gave my answer. If the answer doesn't concern you, that's absolutely fine. Keep your abuse for a respectful answer to yourself.
-
@Meepercat @quanin um wow. there's really no need to be rude. I would argue that there's a difference between your data being stolen by an unauthorised bad actor and that bad actor being your service provider. The information is there. It's for you to do what you like with it. You asked a question. I gave my answer. If the answer doesn't concern you, that's absolutely fine. Keep your abuse for a respectful answer to yourself.
@JustinMac84 @Meepercat I think her point is the bad actors are absolutely your service providers. I have 0 doubt my data is being sold, and I have even less doubt my phone company's the one selling it. But I need a phone company, so that's the baseline. But when that's the baseline, the rest is basically just Tuesday.
-
@JustinMac84 The problem isn't that I might want to come back. The problem is when I won't leave. You don't have to trap me there in order for me to decide that I like it much better there. What's happening at my house that that's a viable option for me? No one wants to ask that question. So instead, they blame you for keeping me there.
@quanin An absolutely valid point. If I've just invited you for tea and other normal behaviours and you prefer to be at my house than anywhere else, that is absolutely a problem that falls on the anywhere else. I agree completely and there is certainly much about society that needs fixing! If I manipulate you to stay though, I bear a share of the blame and so should suffer consequences for that unacceptable behaviour.
-
@JustinMac84 @Meepercat I think her point is the bad actors are absolutely your service providers. I have 0 doubt my data is being sold, and I have even less doubt my phone company's the one selling it. But I need a phone company, so that's the baseline. But when that's the baseline, the rest is basically just Tuesday.
@quanin @JustinMac84 Ex fucking xactly. The bad actors are everyfuckingwhere now. You can do nothing about it. Scaring people is useless. I need a service provider. To read my printed media. Why? Because having people do it for me isn't helpful. It's actually far less than helpful. The government ain't gonna give me my very own extra special helpy happy helper person to come read my mail for me. Why? Because I ain't entitled.
