Even more than ever, the disconnect between _how_ tools impact the public sphere and _how_ they are selected, curated, and governed is more crucial than ever.
When I say "governed" I mean a broad definition which is perhaps more akin to asking the question: "what kind of influences do we _want_ in play?" Spoiler alert: it isn't only governments that do governance; corporations do it too. Governance is an inevitable result of an organization or social hierarchy acting in the world. The complete opposite (abdication of responsibility) is anarchy. (One more thing that people may confuse: a libertarian philosophy is indeed a governance strategy, even though it is more hands-off than some: it won't work well in a Hobbesian "state of nature" since markets can't function well without some form of power (i.e. authority) that can enforce laws (such as property rights) and reduce violence and threats to manageable levels.)
> We collaborated extensively with the news industry and carefully listened to feedback from our global publisher partners, including Associated Press, Axel Springer, Condé Nast, Dotdash Meredith, Financial Times, GEDI, Hearst, Le Monde, News Corp, Prisa (El País), Reuters, The Atlantic, Time, and Vox Media.
A diversity of information sources is necessary but not sufficient for understanding the world well. It is too early to tell what kind of algorithmic balancing act OpenAI might or might not use for the information sources above. But money talks, so my expectations are not high.
It is not in the public interest to prioritize for-profit "news" organizations such as News Corp. There is just not enough overlap between the Murdochian (Molochian) financial incentives and the needs of an informed citizenry.
Serving the public interest is a waning part of OpenAI's charter, if it remains at all. It is instructive to compare how a U.S. citizen can run/vote for a local school board against what it would take for that same citizen to influence an OpenAI decision. My point: it matters relatively little what OpenAI says; what matters more is their charter, structure, incentives, and mechanisms.
What are the chances that an a-democratic, techno-elite organization (like OpenAI) will lead us boldly and wisely into the future? What about the current slate of western democracies? I'm pessimistic on both. My take is that we don't seem to have the institutions, political will, or understanding to be up to the task of handling AI transitions well. It could go in any number of directions.
When I say "governed" I mean a broad definition which is perhaps more akin to asking the question: "what kind of influences do we _want_ in play?" Spoiler alert: it isn't only governments that do governance; corporations do it too. Governance is an inevitable result of an organization or social hierarchy acting in the world. The complete opposite (abdication of responsibility) is anarchy. (One more thing that people may confuse: a libertarian philosophy is indeed a governance strategy, even though it is more hands-off than some: it won't work well in a Hobbesian "state of nature" since markets can't function well without some form of power (i.e. authority) that can enforce laws (such as property rights) and reduce violence and threats to manageable levels.)
> We collaborated extensively with the news industry and carefully listened to feedback from our global publisher partners, including Associated Press, Axel Springer, Condé Nast, Dotdash Meredith, Financial Times, GEDI, Hearst, Le Monde, News Corp, Prisa (El País), Reuters, The Atlantic, Time, and Vox Media.
A diversity of information sources is necessary but not sufficient for understanding the world well. It is too early to tell what kind of algorithmic balancing act OpenAI might or might not use for the information sources above. But money talks, so my expectations are not high.
It is not in the public interest to prioritize for-profit "news" organizations such as News Corp. There is just not enough overlap between the Murdochian (Molochian) financial incentives and the needs of an informed citizenry.
Serving the public interest is a waning part of OpenAI's charter, if it remains at all. It is instructive to compare how a U.S. citizen can run/vote for a local school board against what it would take for that same citizen to influence an OpenAI decision. My point: it matters relatively little what OpenAI says; what matters more is their charter, structure, incentives, and mechanisms.
What are the chances that an a-democratic, techno-elite organization (like OpenAI) will lead us boldly and wisely into the future? What about the current slate of western democracies? I'm pessimistic on both. My take is that we don't seem to have the institutions, political will, or understanding to be up to the task of handling AI transitions well. It could go in any number of directions.