seen from United States

seen from India
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from India
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Georgia
seen from China
seen from United Kingdom
seen from India
seen from Georgia
seen from Norway
seen from Russia

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Netherlands

seen from United Kingdom
seen from United Kingdom
Strawberry 🍓 Jam And Toast 🍞
As of this week, I have a new article in the July-August 2023 Special Issue of American Scientist Magazine. It’s called “Bias Optimizers,” and it’s all about the problems and potential remedies of and for GPT-type tools and other “A.I.”
This article picks up and expands on thoughts started in “The ‘P’ Stands for Pre-Trained” and in a few threads on the socials, as well as touching on some of my comments quoted here, about the use of chatbots and “A.I.” in medicine.
I’m particularly proud of the two intro grafs:
Recently, I learned that men can sometimes be nurses and secretaries, but women can never be doctors or presidents. I also learned that Black people are more likely to owe money than to have it owed to them. And I learned that if you need disability assistance, you’ll get more of it if you live in a facility than if you receive care at home. At least, that is what I would believe if I accepted the sexist, racist, and misleading ableist pronouncements from today’s new artificial intelligence systems. It has been less than a year since OpenAI released ChatGPT, and mere months since its GPT-4 update and Google’s release of a competing AI chatbot, Bard. The creators of these systems promise they will make our lives easier, removing drudge work such as writing emails, filling out forms, and even writing code. But the bias programmed into these systems threatens to spread more prejudice into the world. AI-facilitated biases can affect who gets hired for what jobs, who gets believed as an expert in their field, and who is more likely to be targeted and prosecuted by police.
As you probably well know, I’ve been thinking about the ethical, epistemological, and social implications of GPT-type tools and “A.I.” in general for quite a while now, and I’m so grateful to the team at American Scientist for the opportunity to discuss all of those things with such a broad and frankly crucial audience.
I hope you enjoy it.
+
The “P” Stands for Pre-trained
I know I’ve said this before, but since we’re going to be hearing increasingly more about Elon Musk and his “Anti-Woke” “A.I.” “Truth GPT” in the coming days and weeks, let’s go ahead and get some things out on the table:
All technology is political. All created artifacts are rife with values. There is no neutral tech. And there never, ever has been.
I keep trying to tell you that the political right understands this when it suits them— when they can weaponize it; and they’re very, very good at weaponizing it— but people seem to keep not getting it. So let me say it again, in a somewhat different way:
There is no ground of pure objectivity. There is no god’s-eye view.
There is no purely objective thing. Pretending there is only serves to create the conditions in which the worst people can play “gotcha” anytime they can clearly point to their enemies doing what we are literally all doing ALL THE TIME: Creating meaning and knowledge out of what we value, together.
There is no God-Trick. There is enmeshed, entangled, messy, relational, intersubjective perspective, and what we can pool and make together from what we can perceive from where we are.
And there are the tools and systems that we can make from within those understandings.
[more]
One more time before the new season begins. The moment the Chiefs locked up their 2019 Super Bowl win.
IG:nflonfox
RB Damien Williams (https://www.chiefs.com/photos/photo-gallery-chiefs-practice-week-6#00d9f534-9ac5-40df-8251-189b66d0b6c0)
Skylar and Damien x Kirby goofiness