naturalmente Francesco, se non hai scritto queste parole che mi sono state riportate, mi scuso... sentiti libero di smentirle.
> chiunque ritorni sulla questione di Giacomo verrà silenziato o espulso
Che onore @informapirata! 🤣
Non mi state dando un po' troppa importanza?
You are welcome.
Shamar
boosted
@Shamar Yes, Tay was actually what I was thinking of when I wrote the scenario. This morning I wrote this post on doing better going forward with how I use phrases from the industry… :)
The challenge is to describe these difference in layman’s terms. The issues with deceptive language I also need to write more about in the section on digital obfuscation.
So thank you for this! You are helping me improve my intentional communication in this area.
Progress has a political (and positive) connotation.
There is plenty of sample where such sort of bots' statistical programming included racist and sexist slur.
Do you remember #Microsoft Tay?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-twitter-bot-idUSKCN0WQ2LA
Did it "progress"?
The programmers (self appointed as "data scientist") didn't select each input tweet by themselves but selected the data source (#Twitter) and designed how such data were turned into vectors, how their dimensionality was reduced and so forth...
The exact same software, computing the exact same output for any given input, could be programmed by collecting the datasource before hand.
So why releasing a pre-alpha software and using "users" to provide its (data)source over time to statistically program it should clear "data scientist" responsibility?
Why it should allow company to waive their legal accauntability?
If you talk (and think) in term of statistical programming instead of #ArtificialIntelligence, a lot of grey areas suddenly becomes cristal clear, several ethical concerns becomes trivial and all accountability issues simply disappear.
So, no: there is no "progress" in a software programmed statistically over time, just irresponsible companies shipping unfinished software and math-washing their own accountability over the externality such software produce for the whole society.
Shamar
boosted
@Shamar @Confindustria Il "lavoro non pagato" rende liberi, libera dalla schiavitù del denaro e rende più leggeri, agili e scattanti. Si ingrassa meno e ci si muove di più.
Si chiama "lavoro agile" infatti.
Bravo, lavora.
"Il lavoro rende liberi!"
Dov'è che l'ho letta?
Un toot di @Confindustria, probabilmente... 🤣
(pensaci un attimo: siamo la prima classe di lavoratori che si porta i mezzi di produzione saldamente ancorati al collo... mica possono chiamarci "lavoratori" che se no vinciamo il conflitto di classe senza nemmeno fare la rivoluzione!)
No, noi non siamo lavoratori: siamo "risorse umane".
Per chi fosse interessato è uscito l'ultimo numero della rivista Gli Asini, dedicato quasi interamente a #Scuola, #Lavoro e #tecnologia (si parla di #EdTech, #SoftwareLibero, #CapitalismoDellaSorveglianza, ma anche di criptomenate, #NTF etc...)
Leggibile in #OpenAccess
https://gliasinirivista.org/rivista/maggio-99-2022/
Buona Festa dei #Lavoratori a tutti! 🎉
Se solo avessero giocato a #Tremulous https://tremulous.net/ #SuperTuxKart https://supertuxkart.net/Main_Page e simili giochi liberi!
No.
The statistical programmer just distributed the software's programming over time.
People used to the "AI" narrative interpret such statistical programming process as "learning" projecting their own experience over the software.
But the software is still just software.
Antropormphism of software is a tool to alieanate people.
well, for sure "autonomously" is plain wrong: being autonomous means being able to decide the rule you follow and that's not something a machine can do.
The fact that software programmed statistically (improperly know as #AI) change its own runtime configuration on certain input doesn't mean it's autonomous: the change is totally predictable, given the current state, the software and the whole input (including transient conditions such as time, scheduling and so on...)
But in general I think that attributing agency to software (as you do when you say they are "allowed to progress") is fundamentally flawn.
Software have no agency, they can just be programmed to simulate one to the untrained eye.
Usually to hide the actual chain of control and responsibilities.
see for example https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.06974
Impressive...
Tiny 58 bytes csv parser, now it's time to implement spreadsheet formulae.
Shamar
boosted
Okay, I can't keep the urge of making my own spreadsheet program at bay any longer.
Let's get started.
> The more autonomously they are allowed to progress, the further they deviate from human understanding.
This is just sci-fi narrative sold as cutting edge research. We could call it "math-washing", smoke in the eyes or the like..
Software does NOT "progress" nor "learn".
There is no #ArtificialIntelligence out there, neither narrow or general.
Simply, put some software is programmed statistically (instead of explicitly), and both the programmers (who call themselves "data-scientist") and the company hiring them refuse to be held accountable for its output and thus pretend that the software itself got some level of autonomy.
It doesn't.
Their output is ALWAYS deterministic given the whole input and state of the machine.
And being unable to compute the output space or to deduct the implemented function BECAUSE it would be too expensive in term of time, money and energy, should simply be a reason to NOT use that software as it's broken beyond repair.
Not a reason to waive legal responsibility.
Shamar
boosted
echo "Is this real life?" | cowsay -n | cowsay -n | cowsay -n | cowsay -n
(il mio segreto sono gli "stand-up meeting" online da 50-70 persone, quando parla uno dei tanti fornitori del cliente a riguardo di un argomento che non ha proprio nulla, MA NULLA, NULLA NULLA a che fare con quello che faccio e che farò mai nel mio lavoro...)
- O.S.
- http://jehanne.io
Joined May 2019
