So whatever you share with Facebook belongs to Facebook, we thought you would like to know... In a few words that is what you'll find in Facebook's updated "Terms of Service". According to Kara Swisher, its pretty much a 'hey, if you share something especially on social networks you are asking for it' type sermon:
"You Have Zero Privacy Anyway. Get Over Itâ€â€“That Goes Double on Social Networks"..."That means once you send something to others, it is out there in cyberspace forever, never ever to return. And that goes double on social-networking sites, where–let’s be honest–people egregiously overshare and then get all righteous when it is explained to them that sharing means, um, sharing."
I guess it all seems logical doesn't it. I mean newspapers and magazines post pictures of celebrities in invariably embarrassing situations and once it is out there, it is out there... and you never see them being asked for compensation by the celebrities so this would clearly not have anything to do with Facebook covering themselves. Probably wouldn't be about dealing with requests to remove images from current or former facebook members either.
No, you're correct Kara, it is only about stating the obvious, being logical about the whole thing, to as our friend Mark puts it, 'be open about the whole thing'.
Being upfront and coming clean is good. So if there is a problem, don't call us, it's your own fault for sharing in the first place.
Another issue here is what happens as a member of a community when you leave, do you have a right to request all the data you added, contributed be removed or accept that it remains. Giving the people the choice does seem to make more sense to me instead of deciding for them. From experience a lot of people don't actually use such functions and may feel leaving their data is like a posthumous stance! Would I be cynical in thinking that Facebook may feel they could then be missing valuable contributions by letting people remove the data? In some cases you are talking about removing a lot of data that otherwise needs to be stored and the cost involved with storing it.
Twitter currently allows me to remove all data I posted, should I delete the account. Maybe Twitter is a far more 'in the moment' service and it would hence make less sense, relying on people's collective memories, rather than stored data...
So, nice attitude. Clever strategic analysis. Great PR spin on the whole thing to make it all sound logical...
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 […]