> Apple’s AI tools were built with responsible AI principles to avoid perpetuating stereotypes and systemic biases.
This is either a straight up lie or an extreme stretching of the truth.
This is from the Danish models but literally this is what it puts as autocomplete for “woman are …”
> woman we not worth as much as men
And it’s not a one off. It’s been going around social media that autocomplete for a long range of other initial phrases are just as stereotypically chauvinistic or racist. It’s pretty clear that no effort was taken at all to sanitize the models.
And no, it’s not using your chat history, though it used to do this. Which just makes things worse as there things are being spread because everyone who draws attention to it on things like Facebook are immediately accused of being a racists or chauvinist.
I do not want to use "sanitized models". Let me install my own models. I don't want some SV people deciding what is "right think" and what is forbidden.
> The negatives of ~Tiktok~short form videos have nothing to do with …
It feels silly with this coloring of TikTok as the evil when meta, Google and a dozen other American companies are doing the same, just less successfully because they let advertisers and corporate interests buy priority in the algorithm which literally just boils down to “you likely like the same stuff as people who like the same stuff as you”.
Of course we can. But the hypocrisy shows how the government doesn't actually care about the health of citizens or society. If they did, they would start with regulations on algorithmic feeds as a first principal, then ban companies that don't comply.
And that could include writing the regulations in such a way that ByteDance couldn't possibly comply, because of their ties to China. At least we would clean up our own home too in the process.
For the most part I don't think there is a difference. It seems like once all the common factors of divisiveness and brainrot are removed, the main difference between TikTok and the others is that it would be harder for certain powers in the US government to corral TikTok into toeing the line on State Department foreign policy goals than western companies. Considering the largely homogenous, biased western media coverage of e.g. the lead up to the 2nd Iraq War, Patriot Act, US-Israel policy that has shaped American viewpoints, I don't think it is obvious why having a major non-aligned media source is a net negative.
It's not like the American companies have their users best interest at heart either! They're literally bound by law to prioritize their shareholders interests.
Well you should be far more wary of what your government will do with such data than a foreign one continents away but i don't think that's the difference you were looing for.
Hard disagree: your own government at least has the incentive to make the country better (or at least appear so) to seek reelection. A foreign adversarial government has the incentive to limit the growth and power of the other country, in so far as it affects their own country.
Should you care about what your own government does with your data? Absolutely, 100%, no doubt, big ticket issue, fly the banners as visibly as possible. But more than an adversary? Not even close.
> your own government at least has the incentive to make the country better (or at least appear so) to seek reelection. A foreign adversarial government has the incentive to limit the growth and power of the other country, in so far as it affects their own country.
"Adversary" is assuming your conclusion. My own government has plenty of incentives to attack my business (I've got plenty of competitors who would support them in doing so), far more so than the government of China.
I agree. I'm not saying TikTok is much different than others. I'm saying when we see TikTok banned we shouldn't feel like "Oh no, not that!", we should feel like "Well, it's a start, but let's do more in that direction."
How do you define this? That's the problem. We should define it somehow, but instead we have a law written specifically for TikTok, making demands because we said so. A proper law is a law for everyone. A law for one company is foolish, wrong, and un-American. Its replacement was already gaining traction before the ban even hit. Without a proper law this is just a hydra waiting to sprout more heads.
The odds [edit: ^W^W^W^Wchances] are just lower that Google and Meta would rig the algorithm to subtly color peoples opinion in favor of China and Russia.
If TikTok is doing propaganda by subtly promoting some reels over others -- who would know? Why would they not be doing it and how can anyone know they are not already doing it?
Not anything blatant of course. Blatant stuff does not change peoples opinions anyway. Just subtly bump some reels that has been proven to shift a demography in a certain direction.
TikTok has all the data it needs to work with the minds of people and also all the ability. And China has the motiviation..
Of course Google and Meta might promote other goals in their algorithms, but the chances of a leak of that happening is definitely higher in current American companies
Yeah, me neither. Some analysis said the absolute number is large but the percentage is still small. And the migration is more about protesting. Xiaohongshu will need to come up with better monetization schemes too.
I think it will be a temporary phenomenon. Tiktok people arrived on RedNote last week and were jaw-droppingly amazed at videos of flashy modern Chinese cities, natural wonders (Guilin mountains), beautifully dressed young men and women, tasty food, Luigi fandom, and cute cats.
For many it was a revelation that the US government/media complex has been systematically lying to them about China. They are arriving at an acceptance that the US is a shabby declining empire dominated by a corrupt elite and heartless broligarchs. Always a good thing to bump up against reality, imho.
However I think that the US-based population of Tiktok refugees will subside once the novelty effect has worn off. Probably shrink by half in a month. Hopefully there will remain a positive lingering effect.
> many it was a revelation that the US government/media complex has been systematically lying to them about China.
The rational and data-based take is that the CCP censors negative content about China on Red Book. See [1], [2] and [3] from David Zhang, and you can verify this on your own.
> They are arriving at an acceptance that the US is a shabby declining empire dominated by a corrupt elite and heartless broligarchs. Always a good thing to bump up against reality, imho.
Try making this comment about China in Red Book and see how long it lasts.
Can you post a video about use of gutter oil in China on Red Book? You can post a video about drug use in SF on Twitter and not get banned.
> If China is so developed, why does it fight for developing nation status?
Because overall, China is still much poorer than the developed world (Western Europe, USA, Japan, etc.).
China has some amazing infrastructure and beautiful cities, and many cities, like Shanghai, Beijing and Shenzhen, are now quite developed, but on the whole, the country still has a ways to go.
> The rational and data-based take is that the CCP censors negative content about China on Red Book. [...] Can you post a video about use of gutter oil in China on Red Book?
There is heavy censorship in China, but there's also heavy propaganda about China in the US. Case in point: the videos you linked to come from Falun Gong media, run by a Scientology-like cult that somehow has tons of money (maybe from a 3-letter agency) to spread their own propaganda in the US.
It’s not. A lot of weight should be put on the concept of “legitimate business”.
Let’s say you decide to open up a car dealership and you use an LLC to buy cars then transfer them to another LLC and sell them. Then declare bankruptcy on the one containing the bills. You won’t be shielded, and you’ll likely go to jail for fraud.
The construction is to allow a business to go bankrupt with limited liability not to allow the expense account of a business to go bankrupt.
When a dealer has a floor plan (to finance their inventory), the cars that are being bought by the dealer are collateral and have liens on them.
The lien has to be satisfied (bank paid with interest) to transfer the title to a buyer or to your theoretical “another LLC.”
Just like my car would have to be, for me to get a clear title to sign over to you.
Not everyone uses a floor plan, an unsecured line of credit would be the one situation where what you’re proposing would “work”
Floor plans are one of the reasons there’s only a few (used) dealerships in town I could walk into, plunk down cash, and walk out with a signed title that day. Because they’re transferring the title to themselves, and then to me, using the chain of ownership boxes on the back,and then sending that to dmv.
I didn’t know a lot about this other than the owner at my previous company had attempted to branch into car sales before he passed away. TLDR, we couldn’t even sell or dispose of the cars with good intentions and they all got repossessed.
If OpenAI had run its company by hiding their hardware around a university campus they would have gotten in trouble too. It is not as much about the scraping as it’s the the part where MIT sees a masked person sneaking into backrooms hiding equipment that got AS in trouble. And of cause that he literally disrupted service to jstor because he did a poor job of scraping it. He could have gotten through all of this if he had appeared less like a cyber terrorist in his execution of his plan, but of cause he though he wouldn’t get caught doing it, so he never considered how it would look if he did.
> For instance, a friend in Europe had to do a 250K GoFundMe campaign to pay for a life-saving treatment for his daughter because well, the only place in the world that performed the surgery she needed was... Guess where? The US.
Interesting, do you have a link? It’s the first time I’ve ever heard of such a case.
> One of the reasons that we don't have Universal Healthcare in the US is that things that are categorically unhealthy would be prohibited from being sold.
Counter argument: Pretty much every other nation has socialized healthcare and still allows sugary beverages and tobacco products.
This is either a straight up lie or an extreme stretching of the truth.
This is from the Danish models but literally this is what it puts as autocomplete for “woman are …”
> woman we not worth as much as men
And it’s not a one off. It’s been going around social media that autocomplete for a long range of other initial phrases are just as stereotypically chauvinistic or racist. It’s pretty clear that no effort was taken at all to sanitize the models.
And no, it’s not using your chat history, though it used to do this. Which just makes things worse as there things are being spread because everyone who draws attention to it on things like Facebook are immediately accused of being a racists or chauvinist.