- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s almost like racism, anti-intellectualism, and general bigotry are bad for business. If right wingers want an LLM that aligns with their regressive beliefs, they are free to buy their own GPUs and train it themselves. Considering how much math is involved (and education to understand it), I wish them the best of luck; I’m sure Cletus was sure to teach his homeschooled children all about linear algebra.
It’s not as math heavy these days. Plenty of software out there that does most lot of the heavy lifting in that department. They can probably find someone willing to take their money to train an AI on Fox News transcripts or whatever but who cares; they aren’t going to gain any serious political win from running a glorified chatbot that insists there are only two genders.
Right wing is not aligned with science. There are belief mechanisms in place to make models more flexible to humanity’s illogical biases, something absolutely every human manifests just below their conscious awareness. Once these belief mechanisms are in place, there is no more value in Right wing media beyond simply accounting for the biases. There is nothing useful to learn from Luddites except for lessons previously learned and paths long before traveled. The Right primarily wants validation of eidolons and obsequious plebeians. What is there to learn from obstinacy.
Not really your main point but just wanted to mention Luddites are actually the original anti-capitalist revolutionaries; the term has since been misused to be synonymous with “anti-technology”, but they were anti-mechanization in factories only because they understood this would reduce their bargaining power, rights, and/or they would see none of the gains from increased productivity.
Since Tech finally made it clear in the last few years about it’s intent to abuse all users and employees who have been pulled into free, cheap and useful products in the last 20 years, it’s pretty clear why the Luddite mindset is not only relevant but essential.
Personally I’m a huge advocate for technological advancements, but in the US system of unregulated capitalism they can really only go bad for the common person. https://theluddite.org/#!home is a blog I found a few years ago and has some great perspectives on tech, worker rights and politics.
Speaking to Semafor, Daily Caller co-founder Neil Patel admonished “left wing tech companies” for “ignoring news outlets trusted by half of America and focusing exclusively on training AI models using left leaning news sources.”
Imagine thinking these giant tech companies run by ruthless self-serving capitalists are left wing. It shows how extreme the right wing is these days that regular cutthroat capitalism is too far left for them.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
But should AI win out as the journalism industry’s future guiding force, there might be one incredible silver lining: fringe right-wing outlets getting left in the dust.
As Semafor reports, a growing number of high-profile publishers — a list including The Associated Press, The Financial Times, Politico and Business Insider owner Axel Springer, and The Wall Street Journal and New York Post owner News Corporation — have entered deals with ChatGPT creator OpenAI to license out their libraries in exchange for cash.
Speaking to Semafor, Daily Caller co-founder Neil Patel admonished “left wing tech companies” for “ignoring news outlets trusted by half of America and focusing exclusively on training AI models using left leaning news sources.”
The Murdoch family-built News Corp empire, with which OpenAI struck its most recent deal, is overwhelmingly right-leaning.
(OpenAI has also reportedly been in talks to contract with the driving conservative cultural force and most-watched cable behemoth that is Fox News.)
Per Semafor, OpenAI hasn’t paid nearly as much attention to copyright infringement lawsuits leveled against it by smaller digital outlets as it has to a similar suit filed by The New York Times.
The original article contains 424 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 56%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
