[Lord Dave]

https://www.npr.org/2024/08/16/nx-s1-5078636/x-twitter-artificial-intelligence-trump-kamala-harris-election

Summary:
X just released an AI chatbot image generator tool.  For no reason.  Right before an election.  Allowing basically anyone to make evidence of vote tampering at any time with 0 talent and then post that shit on Social Media to get people angry.

Trump is gonna love this.

[Tom Bishop]

From what I see this article is not even complaining that people online are creating election tampering evidence. NPR is the organization creating and feeding those prompts into the image bot.

Maybe next they can have one of their reporters stab someone on the street and then publish an article attacking the knife maker, as their next absurdity.

[Lord Dave]

Hard to complain about something they can't know. Its more it will happen and you, tom, will likely fall for it then write at length how it's not AI generated then delete the post when it's proven wrong.

[honk]

From what I see this article is not even complaining that people online are creating election tampering evidence.

Obviously not, seeing how this AI was only just created, and the election isn't for another few months. NPR is arguing that people can create false evidence, not that they are. That's the very premise of the article, not some hidden truth that you've cleverly managed to discover.

[Tom Bishop]

Internationally, there are presidential elections every week or two. Millions of those people have internet access. They should do more work to determine that people are actually using these AI bots to fabricate evidence. What they are doing is about equivalent to bringing up a website selling knives and screaming "ah ha!"

Everyone already knows that they can easily create such evidence. How hard is it to take a picture of a friend or yourself in sunglasses with a cardboard box next to a post office box?

Like with the knife example, reasonable people also know that it is illegal to fabricate evidence of a crime. The risk is generally not worth the reward, regardless of the triviality of performing the action. Hence these arguments of what could happen fall apart with the slightest introspection.

[Pete Svarrior]

For a change, Tom is being eminently sensible. For example, when Donald Trump claimed that Kamala Harris used AI to fabricate photos of her rally crowd, moderate media spoke in unison to point out just how silly that was. I'm glad that Tom is now firmly in that group, adding his voice to the liberal media crowd.

[Pete Svarrior]

Also, the complete lack of guardrails on Grok is very fun. Honestly the best move Elon's made since he lost the last remnants of his sanity. Some examples:










This will surely bring advertisers back to Twitter!

[Lord Dave]

Tom can and will simultaniously support that AI was used to fabricate something and that AI would never be used to fabricate something.


@Pete:
Its only for premium twitter folk, so it'll bring in the money as people sign up for the $32/year.  Or the $3/month to spam AI photos then not resubscribe.

[Pete Svarrior]

Its only for premium twitter folk, so it'll bring in the money as people sign up for the $32/year.  Or the $3/month to spam AI photos then not resubscribe.

Yeah, but that won't be profitable in the long run, not without advertisers. Twitter is rapidly approaching bankruptcy and, at least for the time being, the only path to redemption is to get advertisers back on board... which they're actively sabotaging.

[Rushy]

Given Elon's net worth, he could run the company for the rest of his life with no company income whatsoever. It costs only one billion dollars per year to run Twitter. He's not going to let it go bankrupt because it's his personal playground. He wants advertisers to come back because he's greedy, but he can easily afford to keep Twitter going without them.

[Pete Svarrior]

That would require for him to liquidate some of his very hypothetical wealth (and pay taxes), and then to fund his company (and pay taxes). Also, he might have to pay his debts if some actual funds pass through his bank accounts. I honestly don't think he's smart enough to pull any of that off.

[Lord Dave]

Its only for premium twitter folk, so it'll bring in the money as people sign up for the $32/year.  Or the $3/month to spam AI photos then not resubscribe.

Yeah, but that won't be profitable in the long run, not without advertisers. Twitter is rapidly approaching bankruptcy and, at least for the time being, the only path to redemption is to get advertisers back on board... which they're actively sabotaging.

Do you ever wonder how the entire internet runs on ads while 99% of us just ignore them?

[Rushy]

That would require for him to liquidate some of his very hypothetical wealth (and pay taxes), and then to fund his company (and pay taxes). Also, he might have to pay his debts if some actual funds pass through his bank accounts. I honestly don't think he's smart enough to pull any of that off.

I'm sure his endless army of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists can find a way. They'll just submit a write off. Write it all off. All these big companies, they write off everything.