Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday February 05, @03:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the achieving-reason-progress-and-freedom-by-dispensing-with-humility-and-nuance dept.

The theoretical promise of AI is as hopeful as the promise of social media once was, and as dazzling as its most partisan architects project. AI really could cure numerous diseases. It really could transform scholarship and unearth lost knowledge. Except that Silicon Valley, under the sway of its worst technocratic impulses, is following the playbook established in the mass scaling and monopolization of the social web:

Facebook (now Meta) has become an avatar of all that is wrong with Silicon Valley. Its self-interested role in spreading global disinformation is an ongoing crisis. Recall, too, the company’s secret mood-manipulation experiment in 2012, which deliberately tinkered with what users saw in their News Feed in order to measure how Facebook could influence people’s emotional states without their knowledge. Or its participation in inciting genocide in Myanmar in 2017. Or its use as a clubhouse for planning and executing the January 6, 2021, insurrection. (In Facebook’s early days, Zuckerberg listed “revolutions” among his interests. This was around the time that he had a business card printed with I’M CEO, BITCH.)

And yet, to a remarkable degree, Facebook’s way of doing business remains the norm for the tech industry as a whole, even as other social platforms (TikTok) and technological developments (artificial intelligence) eclipse Facebook in cultural relevance.

The new technocrats claim to embrace Enlightenment values, but in fact they are leading an antidemocratic, illiberal movement.

[...] The Shakespearean drama that unfolded late last year at OpenAI underscores the extent to which the worst of Facebook’s “move fast and break things” mentality has been internalized and celebrated in Silicon Valley. OpenAI was founded, in 2015, as a nonprofit dedicated to bringing artificial general intelligence into the world in a way that would serve the public good. Underlying its formation was the belief that the technology was too powerful and too dangerous to be developed with commercial motives alone.

Related:


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05, @03:35AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05, @03:35AM (#1343052)
    What I remember was people in Big Tech trying to figure out how to deliver a non Trump win.

    And the Democrats were actually trying to "elevate Trump".

    Then when the Democrats lost they and much of the media (which has a Democrat bias) tried to blame Facebook and the Russians for it, despite Clinton being a very unprofessional politician who did stuff like call voters a "basket of deplorables.

    Meanwhile Trump was being a professional liar/politician by promising to build a wall etc.
    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Opportunist on Monday February 05, @01:41PM

    by Opportunist (5545) on Monday February 05, @01:41PM (#1343121)

    In the last two elections, my only sentiment was "Could we get them to stand back to back? Because neither of them is worth a whole bullet".

  • (Score: 2) by istartedi on Monday February 05, @09:10PM (3 children)

    by istartedi (123) on Monday February 05, @09:10PM (#1343211) Journal

    I don't recall that. Instead, I recall the Democrats making everybody feel ashamed if they expressed their desire to vote for Trump. Then they took polls, not factoring in that people might answer differently even if the poll claimed to be anonymous, because that's human nature. Then they took the results of those polls at face value and assumed they had the Rust Belt locked up. They didn't bother to campaign there very much, and the rest is history.

    The Democrats have a knack for losing close ones.

    --
    Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06, @04:02PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06, @04:02PM (#1343335)

      Well it definitely happened, but I can't find some of the stuff I'm looking for (which predates 2016 Trump's win). Maybe already removed or Google etc aren't making such stuff easy to find. There's smoking gun stuff AFTER Trump's win where Google shows their bias FWIW ( https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/ [breitbart.com] ). But that's not the one.

      But before Trump's win there was definitely a pro Clinton bias from the tech companies:
      https://money.cnn.com/2016/08/23/technology/hillary-clinton-tech-fundraisers/index.html [cnn.com]

      Cook is just the latest in a growing list of tech executives and venture capitalists working to raise big money to help Clinton beat Donald Trump, who has repeatedly attacked tech companies and opposes the industry on key issues like immigration and trade.

      Salesforce (CRM) CEO Marc Benioff, Google (GOOG) CFO Ruth Porat, Zynga (ZNGA) chairman Mark Pincus, Napster founder Sean Parker, SolarCity (SCTY) CEO (and Elon Musk's cousin) Lyndon Rive and LinkedIn (LNKD) founder Reid Hoffman have all contributed or raised at least $100,000 for Clinton's bid.

      https://observer.com/2016/10/wikileaks-reveals-dnc-elevated-trump-to-help-clinton/ [observer.com]

      https://time.com/4486502/hillary-clinton-basket-of-deplorables-transcript/ [time.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06, @04:22PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06, @04:22PM (#1343338)

      There was lots of talk about Facebook helping Trump win AFTER Trump won. But before Trump won there was this:
      https://nypost.com/2016/04/12/zuckerberg-lays-out-facebooks-future-takes-subtle-jab-at-trump/ [nypost.com]

      Mark Zuckerberg took a thinly veiled swipe at Donald Trump on Tuesday, blasting the real-estate tycoon’s talk of “building walls.”

      “I hear fearful voices talking about building walls,” the 31-year-old tech billionaire said as he took the stage at Facebook’s annual F8 developer conference in San Francisco. “Instead of building walls, we can build bridges.”

      And this: https://gizmodo.com/facebook-employees-asked-mark-zuckerberg-if-they-should-1771012990 [gizmodo.com]

      Inside Facebook, the political discussion has been more explicit. Last month, some Facebook employees used a company poll to ask Zuckerberg whether the company should try “to help prevent President Trump in 2017.”

      Every week, Facebook employees vote in an internal poll on what they want to ask Zuckerberg in an upcoming Q&A session. A question from the March 4 poll was: “What responsibility does Facebook have to help prevent President Trump in 2017?”

      A screenshot of the poll, given to Gizmodo, shows the question as the fifth most popular.

      So it did seem a bit strange to later see accusations that Facebook (and the Russians) helped Trump win, when before that they seemed more likely to be biased against Trump from employees to Zuck himself.