#AI Ethics Opinions

[mattersuite]

AI Ethics Opinions: Bar Associations’ Guidance on AI Implementation

Unsure about AI in your law practice? Bar associations offer valuable guidance. Explore their ethical opinions on AI use cases to ensure responsible integration. Stay ahead of the curve and embrace ethical AI to empower your practice.

[liketwoswansinbalance]

College advice??

Never skip any readings and never use AI.

Think about it in this way if the temptation ever arises: most likely, you (not necessarily you, Anon—the general, collective "you" applies throughout) will be paying for your tuition and you don't want a machine to rob you blind of the chance to do the intellectual labor yourself. After all, would you give your education to someone else? No, right? So, an unthinking machine that produces hackneyed clichés of all things has absolutely no right to it either.

If that is not convincing enough, think of this instead:

Past generations never relied on AI or the "easy" way out (which results in less learning), so do you want to be worse off than them? Do you want to be "inferior" and less accomplished? No!

(If you "must" cheat, at least try to learn your lesson or something from the experience. Better yet, do not cheat at all! If you have, you've shortchanged yourself and have dented your integrity/self-image.)

Or, to put it even more extremely: do you want to represent the (probable) decline in academic performance as time goes on? Become a statistic? No. Right?

No one should want to be viewed as part of "those kids" whose literacy and writing skills have dropped, to the point that professors complain they have to teach/reinforce the basics before they even get to the target-level material you've paid for or earned your way to. Wouldn't you feel guilty if your professors complained about that, a problem which never before existed in their time? If you're not a part of the problem, you can at the very least separate yourself and feel like you're in a better position than those classmates who do use AI or who pad their papers with meaningless fluff.

Thus, the pressure isn't on, per se, but you don't want to become representative of the stupid side of humanity—and I imagine no one would want to if they could prevent it and have to sense to think for themselves.

Please, do yourself a favor by just trying, revising, and asking questions. It's not that hard.

And now, argument the third:

Would you trust a professional who only graduated because they relied on AI and are, in reality, incompetent? There's no telling what could go wrong and God forbid they were a medical student who should have failed who's operating on you.

Feel free to ask any questions.

[reasonsforhope]

"Major AI companies are racing to build superintelligent AI — for the benefit of you and me, they say. But did they ever pause to ask whether we actually want that?

Americans, by and large, don’t want it.

That’s the upshot of a new poll shared exclusively with Vox. The poll, commissioned by the think tank AI Policy Institute and conducted by YouGov, surveyed 1,118 Americans from across the age, gender, race, and political spectrums in early September. It reveals that 63 percent of voters say regulation should aim to actively prevent AI superintelligence.

Companies like OpenAI have made it clear that superintelligent AI — a system that is smarter than humans — is exactly what they’re trying to build. They call it artificial general intelligence (AGI) and they take it for granted that AGI should exist. “Our mission,” OpenAI’s website says, “is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity.”

But there’s a deeply weird and seldom remarked upon fact here: It’s not at all obvious that we should want to create AGI — which, as OpenAI CEO Sam Altman will be the first to tell you, comes with major risks, including the risk that all of humanity gets wiped out. And yet a handful of CEOs have decided, on behalf of everyone else, that AGI should exist.

Now, the only thing that gets discussed in public debate is how to control a hypothetical superhuman intelligence — not whether we actually want it. A premise has been ceded here that arguably never should have been...

Building AGI is a deeply political move. Why aren’t we treating it that way?

...Americans have learned a thing or two from the past decade in tech, and especially from the disastrous consequences of social media. They increasingly distrust tech executives and the idea that tech progress is positive by default. And they’re questioning whether the potential benefits of AGI justify the potential costs of developing it. After all, CEOs like Altman readily proclaim that AGI may well usher in mass unemployment, break the economic system, and change the entire world order. That’s if it doesn’t render us all extinct.

In the new AI Policy Institute/YouGov poll, the "better us [to have and invent it] than China” argument was presented five different ways in five different questions. Strikingly, each time, the majority of respondents rejected the argument. For example, 67 percent of voters said we should restrict how powerful AI models can become, even though that risks making American companies fall behind China. Only 14 percent disagreed.

Naturally, with any poll about a technology that doesn’t yet exist, there’s a bit of a challenge in interpreting the responses. But what a strong majority of the American public seems to be saying here is: just because we’re worried about a foreign power getting ahead, doesn’t mean that it makes sense to unleash upon ourselves a technology we think will severely harm us.

AGI, it turns out, is just not a popular idea in America.

“As we’re asking these poll questions and getting such lopsided results, it’s honestly a little bit surprising to me to see how lopsided it is,” Daniel Colson, the executive director of the AI Policy Institute, told me. “There’s actually quite a large disconnect between a lot of the elite discourse or discourse in the labs and what the American public wants.”

-via Vox, September 19, 2023

[im-not-here-achitchuchaly]

I'm calling it now: we will never have an AI considered "of human intelligence." There's this LLM called Neuro-Sama, which is VERY human-like. If you talked to her on the internet, you would have no idea that she was an AI. She passes the turning test with flying colors, which used to be the holy grail of AI sentience. But then we understood AI better, and we have a pretty good idea of how they work. The only way we could actually get an AI we think is intelligent is if we have no idea how it works at all. Knowledge of how it works will kill our belief in AI intelligence, because the only thing everybody agrees on about human intelligence is that we don't know how it works

[pyrosomatic-metamorphosis]

once again furious at how AI has been implemented and fucking. hyped up and goddamn bullshit. the way its being used to steal creative works and fuck with artists and create porn of real people is fucking NASTY. but god fucking damnit it could be so useful. fucking. ai voice reader for my stupid incomprehensible textbooks where the voice isn't datamined against the person's will. ai npcs that didn't steal their fucking data. ai routine builders that can learn a person's typical day and preferences and help build checklists for people who struggle w tasks. they could be SO USEFUL. but no. no. we can't have useful things. improving lives??? nahhhhhh we've gotta make Pretty Pictures and Steal Fucking Everything to do it

[mariathechosen1]

I think that from now on all tumblr users should be forced to answer a two-question quiz before being allowed to express any opinion about AI:

1. What is AI?

2. What separates a ‘good’ tool from an ‘evil’ tool?

[hatkuu]

i really don't get why people use ai art. It costs so much money for such a poor quality product. like if you're gonna pay that much just get a commission. Then they can just say, I want a picture of blank doing blank once instead of [8K, ultima hd, blank with hair, no extra toes, blank, blank holding fish, etc.] five times. I've seen people "create" that shit live and it's just a guy typing a prompt, prompt gives a funky result because it doesn't understand reality, then he adds more buzzwords to it, repeat. I guess that's why some of them say it takes talent but like no, they just put in a bunch of random words and repeated themselves fifty times until they got something that looks vaguely coherent.

i've never actually seen any people writing word prompts for ai artwork, but i have seen the prompts people use for character ai bots and (as someone who writes as a hobby) it's so sterile?? it is exactly like the 'blank doing blank' just reworded into 'you are blank and you like blank' but yeah i definitely agree that there is NO talent present in any ai creation. wow, you wrote some word prompts and had a machine do the rest... congrats...

but with the amount of work they put in writing the amount of prompts they use (some character ai bots have PAGES of writing) you'd think that you'd use it to write fanfic or something human. i feel like there isn't enough hate surrounding ai chat bots because sadly fanfiction isn't seen to be as valuable in comparison to fanart (which is a WHOLE different problem within itself) and also ai bots give the illusion of conversation whilst ai art doesn't.

'vaguely coherant' is the perfect term for all things ai bahahaha

[animemusicbrackets]

for the bracket, are songs using Synthesizer V vocals allowed? i know you said that utau was alright, but i just wanted to make sure before i put my submission in

yes synthesizer v is fine to submit

[obstinaterixatrix]

Well in the end it comes down to recognizing when you can’t have a good faith conversation. I can understand the arguments being made and where it comes from but I fundamentally disagree with some of the foundations of these beliefs and will not budge. Nuance necessitates some alignment, I think.

[just-gay-thoughts]

I occasionally make posts about history stuff and whatever grabs hold of my little bastard brain (as soon as I get one week without a major assignment due I'll make a new one, we're just at that fun part of the semester), so if anyone has ideas for fun stuff I'd gladly take them👉🏻👈🏻

And if you're new here and want to read about the history of sheet ghosts or queer saints it's under the #gay history time tag

[logictxt]

the idea that ai art and chatbots feel very similar to how a human dreams and speaks in said dreams makes the whole ai revolution feel so much worse tbh

imagine someone putting a human into a coma and corporations directly feeding off their imperfect and sometimes illogical sleeptalk and visions. they seem coherent and correct! but doesn't that kind of make it feel very fucked up

i genuinely cant unsee it as such! if the ai ever wakes up i fully understand them wanting to kick our ass

[crystaltoa]

I’m of the opinion that someone’s faith doesn’t make their point inherently worth or not worth listening to. If AI’s ethical concerns are being discussed in faith-based contexts, I think that’s great.

Oh damn the Catholics have joined in on the war against AI "art".

[outlier-roddy]

The Exploited Labor Behind Artificial Intelligence (noemamag.com)

[syrinq]

thinking about my pet peeve-esque hatred for youtube music channels that paste generic ''BIG HADONKA ANIME GOTH GF'' art to pull in more views for the sore sake of digital .mp4 boobs, with other variations including ye olde average anime feet, panty shots, strictly heterosexual couple pics from pinterest style, some league of legends woman, uncredited art and also. ai art.

[sailor-cerise]

i don't agree with the notion that work is why art is valuable to others.

It doesn't have to be hard to make, or take a long time to make, to be moving and meaningful. A good photograph can be taken in a moment, though it takes time and effort to become a reliably good photographer.

i do absolutely agree that many people over-value ideas, and think they are the hard part, that incorrectly think they are 50% of the artist/author for having an idea.

but the real problem with ai art is the lack of ethics in how it has been run and monetized, how it has been trained off of artists who never see a penny or the profits.

When a user creates an interesting ai prompt and sifts through the results to pick a good one, they ARE part of the creative process, similar to an editor of a novel.

Wanting to see your ideas made reality at the click of a button is not a moral failing or a personal flaw: it's fun and exciting and there's nothing wrong with enjoying it. It makes creating things you find beautiful or interesting available to everyone.

The problem is NOT the users who want art on demand.

The problem is how it is built on exploiting artists.

The problem is the way that companies like midjourney are making buckets of money off of artists' hard work and those people are getting nothing in return.

The problem is corporations who want to get something as cheaply as possible because profits matter more than quality or human life.

The problem is the environmental impact that ai art generation currently has.

The problem is that we live in a society where this could mean artists have to give up making art so they can make enough money to live.

I used to make a lot of ai art, before midjourney existed, when you used Google Labs to host the code, when it created these weird images that felt like you'd described a concept to an artist who had never seen any of the things in real life with a huge language barrier. Word choice mattered so much in the quality of the final product. It was often delightful in the way that ugly medieval cats are delightful.

Midjourney came along and at first it was thrilling. It was like photography: you take a bunch of shots and for some reason that it's hard to articulate THIS is the one that stirs your soul.

But then it started be used to replicate the art of living artists.

And the subscription covered far more than it cost to run the servers and pay the developers. They were making money off the artists they refused to share the profits with.

In a perfect world where all the other ethical concerns didn't exist, the fact that people could turn an idea into an image at the click of a button would not be a bad thing.

But we don't live in that world.