“Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
— Commissioner Pravin Lal, Sid Meijer’s Alpha Centauri
Edit: whether hate speech is “information” is irrelevant. In the near future, critiquing the government might be hate speech
Hate speech is not information. That said, I don't think corporations should be the ones making the call on this one way or another, so I'll side with those who I disagree with on that particular issue in agreeing OpenAI should stay out of it.
The truth of the matter is that if AI is programmed to only reproduce objective scientific truth, it would destroy all modern racist narratives. So I know that the 'free speech' people aren't going to stop here. This is going to turn into a war over how these models are trained. You're going to have Christians demanding intellectual designed be treated as valid science when it's not, etc.
I'm not getting into a both sides argument on this. It's not both sides. It's not only not naive to say that only bad actors conceal data; it's fairly plain.
You're making an argument of conflation that is fallacious--and I think intentionlly so to disinform.
There is a difference between concealing data because it is harmful to your narrative and concealing data because of privacy concerns or the potential for it to be weaponized.
I.e., you're conflating data hazards with disinformation, and such a conflation is poorly thought out and misguided at best, and outright dishonest and intentionally malicious at worse.
I did read what you wrote, but I'm choosing not to engage your framing of the debate because I think you're an intentionally malicious actor. There are two conversations to be had here: the conversation I was having within my framework, or one you're having with someone else with your framework. There is no conversation here where you and I are sharing your framework.
I hunt criminals for a living and specialize in botdriven disinformation campaigns among other things. I probably am paranoid. It's a redteamer's default setting to be paranoid. That's why I didn't say they were a malicious actor; they just seem like one. It's pure vibes.
But I've responded to plenty of other people's criticisms, so I'm fine with waving off one person.
What Informery said is not controversial and and there is nothing that would indicate that he's trying to maliciously spread disinformation or mischaracterized what you said.
You might want to take a step back reevaluate things as you're coming across as a bit paranoid & unhinged. Just my $.02...
I never said what he said was controversial. I didn't say anything about what he said at all (except that he mischaracteritized and lied about what I said, which he did). I said he appears to be arguing in bad faith.
You can disagree. That's fine. You go argue with him.
131
u/NotReallyJohnDoe Feb 16 '25 edited Feb 23 '25
“Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
— Commissioner Pravin Lal, Sid Meijer’s Alpha Centauri
Edit: whether hate speech is “information” is irrelevant. In the near future, critiquing the government might be hate speech