Another example of why the Web 2.0 concept is not viable as described by O'reilly. Mainly the "trust your users" is pretty utopian but AdSense is also not a good example of "customer self service". An article on MediaPost today talks about how the need for investors/advertisers money has pushed MySpace owners into setting up procedures to monitor content. Why ? Advertisers have been extremely reticent to invest money in advertising on pages where the content can invariably be 'risqué' and in some cases insulting.
I feel that this is also one of the problems with Google's Adsense and Kanoodle seems to have figured out. Yet again a Web 2.0 example that just isn't good in my opinion. There are some things as a content producer you don't want to see on your site and AdSense/Google just doesn't seem to care about these concerns. I do not believe AdSense is a good example of "customer self-service" since you cannot choose 'not' to display direct competitors' ads on your own site. With Kanoodle you have more power over what adverts appear on your site. Potential advertisers on MySpace are in a more powerful position and therefore won't invest their money unless the conditions are appropriate.
The Web 2.0 as described by O'Reilly is just too naive in this concept of letting each and everybody manage content where and how they want. The fact that examples cited seem to be one by one reverting to monitoring procedures that manage this is a pretty good example of how open systems just do not fit average online human behaviour...
I question the reliability and accuracy of Generative AI (GenAI) in enterprise scenarios, particularly when faced with adversarial questions, highlighting that current Large Language Models (LLMs) may be data-rich but lack in reasoning and causality. I would call for a more balanced approach to AI adoption in cases of assisting users, requiring supervision, and the need for better LLM models that can be trusted, learn, and reason.
I discuss my experience with chatbots, contrasting older rules-based systems with newer GenAI (General Artificial Intelligence) chatbots. We cannot dismiss the creative capabilities of GenAI-based chatbots, but these systems lack reliability, especially in customer-facing applications, and improvements in the way AI is structured could lead to a "software renaissance," potentially reducing society's technical debt.
The article discusses the contrasting debate on how AI safety is and should be managed, its impact on technical debt, and its societal implications.
It notes the Center for AI Safety's call for a worldwide focus on the risks of AI, and Meredith Whittaker's criticism that such warnings preserve the status quo, strengthening tech giants' dominance. The piece also highlights AI's potential to decrease societal and technical debt by making software production cheaper, simpler, and resulting in far more innovation. It provides examples of cost-effective open-source models that perform well and emphasizes the rapid pace of AI innovation. Last, the article emphasises the need for adaptive legislation to match the pace of AI innovation, empowering suitable government entities for oversight, defining appropriate scopes for legislation and regulation, addressing ethical issues and biases in AI, and promoting public engagement in AI regulatory decisions.
Japan has made its ruling on the situation between Content creators and Businesses. Japanese companies that use AI have the freedom to use content for training purposes without the burden of copyright laws. This news about the copyright laws in Japan reported over at Technomancers is seen as Businesses: 1 / Content Creators: 0 The […]