Morally speaking I’d blame both sides on this matter - Microsoft/LinkedIn for shoving down generative A"I" where it shouldn’t, and users assumptive/gullible thus harmful enough to take the output at face value.
Comment on Microsoft's LinkedIn: If our AI gets it wrong, that's your problem
FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
At this point, if you’re not double-checking something produced by your AI tool of choice, it absolutely is your fault. It’s no secret that these applications were trained on garbage.
lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
LoamImprovement@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
The only thing I use AI for is generating character art for tabletop portraits and when the well is sufficiently poisoned I will probably go back to Pinterest.
August27th@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
“We will provide you with a tool to emit garbage and a platform to share content. If you put the two together, you are liable.”
Attractive nuisance much? Is it too much to ask that they should have to label it a garbage generator instead of “AI”? Why does honesty always have to take a back seat?
megopie@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
Because then tech would have to admit they’re moving in to a period of stability rather than a period of constant growth.
The big companies and start ups need to prove they’ve still got “revolutionary” potential otherwise the stock values start to drop. And lower stock values means less bonuses for leadership.