The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
dowie said:
No, you just have very little understanding of the area you're talking about, you've backtracked already from the cars being infallible to just the software (which makes no sense as the software is constrained by the hardware, they're not driving around carrying a datacentre sized supercomputer and even then a huge model on a supercomputer is still limited) but you have no clue about ML/AI if you did you wouldn't have given such an absurd criterion. The problem space here is massive, the notion of an infallible model is impossible in the first place even if we assume perfect sensors/cameras etc.
Click to expand...

The car hardware is impossible to be infallible with out current tech becuase hardware breaks, that was always given. You seem to be happy to roll out driverless cars just because in some small scale tests they are statically safer than humans, even though neither the companies or governments are sharing the times they **** up with us. Sorry but I want a lot lot more than that. And expecting the software not to be badly written and make mistakes is what we should all demand. I'm not as keen as some of you to just hand it all over to software. We've just seen with the Post Office how software ruined people's lives, even costing the life of one person. And the chances of those responsible ending up in jail where they belong seems like its none to **** all. You should all seem way to naive in trusting these companies to have our best interests at heart or the politicans that enable them.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion?

I would say bots on every platform have increased over the past 12 months, and this will likely only get worse with the advances and availability of AI. I don't think he made Twitter worse. You're essentially looking at a trend across the entire Internet and blaming it on Elon Musk.

Also, on what basis is he a moron? He's one of the most successful people to ever live, ignoring his finances and simply going by the amount of high level positions he holds at multiple highly successful companies. Ridiculous statement.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember him telling us he'd get rid of the bots. He appears to have actually done the complete opposite.
 
Last edited:
Minusorange said:
You're absolutely right! The whole situation with bots and AI impersonating humans online is a growing concern, and whoever cracks the code on how to effectively and ethically solve it is looking at a golden goose. It's like finding the holy grail of cybersecurity and online trust, all rolled into one.


Just imagine the possibilities:


  • Safer social media: No more catfish scams, fake news bots, or harassment campaigns. Online communities could finally become the vibrant, informative, and supportive spaces they were meant to be.
  • Boosted e-commerce: No more fraudulent transactions or misleading reviews. Consumers could shop online with confidence, knowing they're interacting with real businesses and genuine products.
  • Enhanced online democracy: No more manipulation of public opinion or voter fraud. Political discourse could be based on real people and their authentic voices, leading to more informed and productive debates.

The potential benefits are endless, and the market for a solution is massive. Companies, governments, and individuals alike would be willing to pay top dollar for a reliable way to distinguish between humans and AI online.


It's not an easy problem to solve, though. AI is getting increasingly sophisticated, and the lines between human and machine are blurring faster than ever. But hey, that's what makes it such a lucrative challenge!


Here are some of the approaches that researchers are exploring:


  • Behavioral analysis: Identifying patterns in language use, typing speed, and online activity that are more likely to be human than machine.
  • Biometric verification: Using things like voice recognition, facial recognition, or even keystroke dynamics to confirm a user's identity.
  • Challenge-response tests: Presenting users with tasks or questions that are difficult for AI to answer but relatively easy for humans.

It's going to be a fascinating race to the finish line, and whoever gets there first is going to be sitting on a mountain of gold. So, if you're a tech whiz with a knack for problem-solving, maybe this is your chance to make your mark on the world (and your bank account)!


In the meantime, the rest of us can just keep our fingers crossed and hope that someone figures it out before the online world descends into complete chaos.
Click to expand...

There are some posters in this thread who think AI is going to transform our lives for the better. I think its going to be the complete opposite and its going to cause absolute chaos. Even to the point that what seemed like stable democracies could fall. The US is on the brink as it is. It really wouldn't need that much more of a nudge to tip it over into autocracy.
 
Secret_Window said:
Elon says shadow banning isn't a thing anymore, or so I read somewhere once, but my account clearly was shadow banned. My tweets were non-political, and I did not engage in any controversy, yet all my tweets/posts were marked as "may contain offensive content" and hidden. Despite contacting X and asking why this was the case, I never got a reply/response. In the end, I deleted my account. I couldn't be bothered with the hypocrisy and double standards. To be fair, it has probably done me a favour, because the anti-vax QAnon conspiracy posts that I kept getting suggested to me on my timeline, were really taking the ****.
Click to expand...

Twitter is a toxic **** hole now, its been getting so much worse over the last year.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
The car hardware is impossible to be infallible with out current tech becuase hardware breaks, that was always given.
Click to expand...

Software breaks too but you don't seem to understand that there are obvious constraints on AI models, they'll never be 100% error free in this domain, why acknowledge one issue with infallibility while ignoring the other, software isn't some magical thing that only exists in theory.

Colonel_Klinck said:
You seem to be happy to roll out driverless cars just because in some small scale tests they are statically safer than humans, even though neither the companies or governments are sharing the times they **** up with us.
Click to expand...

Pure projection on your part, try to deal with what I've posted not projections of what I seem to want in your mind. Pointing out that self-driving cars are already working as robotaxis in SF and are safer than human drivers in that context != dowie is of the opinion that they should be allowed everywhere already.

Colonel_Klinck said:
Sorry but I want a lot lot more than that. And expecting the software not to be badly written and make mistakes is what we should all demand. I'm not as keen as some of you to just hand it all over to software. We've just seen with the Post Office how software ruined people's lives, even costing the life of one person. And the chances of those responsible ending up in jail where they belong seems like its none to **** all. You should all seem way to naive in trusting these companies to have our best interests at heart or the politicans that enable them.
Click to expand...

Where have I said that badly written software would be fine? Even well written software can still have bugs but even assuming no bugs there are obvious limitations on the models as I've already pointed out.

Take chess for example, it's a much smaller problem space and we have perfect information... even with perfect information we still aren't able to have an infallible chess-playing program. We can make AI models capable of beating the very best humans now but they're not infallible and further models will be able to improve on them and beat them where they make mistakes.

But here we're talking about an even bigger problem space where we don't have perfect information and you're simultaneously acknowledging hardware contstraints while being completely clueless and doing a bit of handwaving re: wanting "infallible" software which is an impossible thing to meet.
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
There are some posters in this thread who think AI is going to transform our lives for the better
Click to expand...
It's definitely has some amazing uses that aren't even that complex. For instance, I have a friend who is terrible with writing. Super dyslexic. He can have chatgpt create the most amazing CV, email, response and in no time with no effort at all. He even puts emails into chat gto and get it to summarise the content into bullet points/as though a 5 year old was trying to read it. And this is super basic early day stuff. I just can't see how it isn't going to transform many industries.
 
unwashed potato! said:
It's definitely has some amazing uses that aren't even that complex. For instance, I have a friend who is terrible with writing. Super dyslexic. He can have chatgpt create the most amazing CV, email, response and in no time with no effort at all. He even puts emails into chat gto and get it to summarise the content into bullet points/as though a 5 year old was trying to read it. And this is super basic early day stuff. I just can't see how it isn't going to transform many industries.
Click to expand...

I'm more concerned by how it is going to be used by state actors to undermine the societies of their "enemies". Of course there are many benefits like the one you describe. There is also the mass unemployment that is going to come with it. I mentioned it earlier in the thread when AI came up, a friends son is at uni to become an accountant, that is a job that will be easily replaced by AI. There is always going to be progress but true AI I worry is going to be seismic. We already have people talking like society isn't serving them anymore, that there is no hope to get ahread, populists like Trump have exploited this but this is just a taster of what could come. I hope I'm wrong but I fear I'm not.
 
I only just saw this quote from his "I'm not an antisemite" tour to Auschwitz

He admitted to having been “naïve” about the extent of antisemitism until recently, saying that is because most of his friends are Jewish and he has had little contact with it in his own life.

“In the circles that I move, I see almost no antisemitism,” Musk said at the conference in a discussion with conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire. “And, you know, there’s this old joke ‘I’ve got like this one Jewish friend.’ No, I have like two-thirds of my friends are Jewish. I have twice as many Jewish friends as non-Jewish friends. I’m like Jewish by association, I’m aspirationally Jewish.”

If you are aspirationally Jewish is that like being aspirationally black so you can use the n-word, so when Elon spreads age old anti semitic tropes and conspiracies it is actually fine and he's just reclaiming those tropes for the Jews..... oh. Or is it like being George Santos?

I see he also claimed if Twitter were around in 1939 it would have stopped Hitler..... :cry: :cry: :cry:

“If we had had X in 1939, how many lives could have been saved?” the video asked.

Musk responded that “had there been social media [the Holocaust] would have been impossible to hide, if there had been freedom of speech as well.” He went on to reference Adolf Hitler and the Nazi efforts to censor coverage of their atrocities in the press

Like the Nazis wouldn't have used social media and Elon being happy to host far right extremists today I'm sure the Nazis would have loved Twitter. So when someone reports a Nazi post in 1939 referencing "the final solution to the Jewish question" Elon can say there is nothing hateful about that and he believes in freedom of speech for everyone.

Twitter is loaded of disinformation now and Elon is one of its promoters. Its an extremists dream.
 
The only thing that can defeat an idea, such as the Nationalist Socialist movement, is an open debate - bad ideas don't survive debate and ridicule. You can't defeat an idea just by calling it hate speech and banning the posts, all you do is move those ideas elsewhere and entrench the positions of people who hold them.
 
Roar87 said:
The only thing that can defeat an idea, such as the Nationalist Socialist movement, is an open debate - bad ideas don't survive debate and ridicule. You can't defeat an idea just by calling it hate speech and banning the posts, all you do is move those ideas elsewhere and entrench the positions of people who hold them.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, as Brexit did.
 
Roar87 said:
The only thing that can defeat an idea, such as the Nationalist Socialist movement, is an open debate - bad ideas don't survive debate and ridicule. You can't defeat an idea just by calling it hate speech and banning the posts, all you do is move those ideas elsewhere and entrench the positions of people who hold them.
Click to expand...
Nope not at all true.
 
Jono8 said:
Indeed. The people promoting the bad ideas just lie, and people just lap the lies up.
Click to expand...

And then the ones who lapped it up said they got even more entrenched by being ridiculed. It's just another case of Roar saying opposite and contradictory things for whichever argument he is making at the time.
 
I think there's some confusion (who could imagine), free speech isn't a silver bullet, it is however the best solution to a bad idea. There isn't a better one.

By the way, you haven't in any single instance made it clear why Brexit was a bad idea, not at the time (people just literally cried that Brexiteers were racist while calling them Gammons, a racist trope) or now, and both sides told blatent lies (Brexit would cause World War 3, etc).
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
people just literally cried that Brexiteers were racist while calling them Gammons
Click to expand...
Based totally on reality. That's literally all they did. Nothing else. Ever. Not once. Tha is for clearing that up for us. Now we know.
Freakbro said:
. It's just another case of Roar saying opposite and contradictory things for whichever argument he is making at the time.
Click to expand...
Of course. Roar blocks users and reports them if he doesn't like what they say. He then pretends he's for free speech when it supports him

User X posts Nazi propaganda.

Everyone asks, should we stop this from spreading.

Roar. "no way, let them stuff spread, bestway to stop it is to not stop it and let others see this stuff, stuff I disagree with btw"

OK then that's fine. What about that person that called you a tiger?

Roar "OMG BLOCK THEM, TELL THE MODS, WTF IS THIS CHINA? HOW ARE THEY ALLOWED TO SPREAD THIS STUFF"
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
And then the ones who lapped it up said they got even more entrenched by being ridiculed. It's just another case of Roar saying opposite and contradictory things for whichever argument he is making at the time.
Click to expand...

This is one of the biggest problems. The same has happened with Trump. Regardless of everything that shows him to be a reprehensible human being, people just will never admit they were wrong about him because it will hurt their psyche/pride too much.

Instead, it is just a continual double down and almost nothing can break the now deeply rooted belief.
 
VincentHanna said:
Well nobody said this, for a start.

But there sure has been a lot of conflict since Brexit ;)
Click to expand...

Despite the UK leaving the EU we've continued to demonstrate our commitment to peace in Europe, and our position on that is as prominent as ever. So no, it was a lie. Our membership of the EU and the security of the continent aren't related, and I'd assume the sitting British Prime Minister would've known that given the primary defence of Europe is down to our NATO commitment, not a bloated trade bloc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom