Who owns the Robot?

[Robert W]

This video examines AI and also who owns the Robot.
Would it matter to you if it was Trump that owned the Robot that generated responses to things you want to know?
Same question only this time it comes from Biden. Do you trust the Biden Robots?

A good way to understand this is to watch this brief video.

 

[Crepitus]

"the Robot"?

I own a couple of robots.

I'm not sure what "the robot" is intended to convey...

 

[Seymour Flops]

This video examines AI and also who owns the Robot.
Would it matter to you if it was Trump that owned the Robot that generated responses to things you want to know?
Same question only this time it comes from Biden. Do you trust the Biden Robots?

A good way to understand this is to watch this brief video.

Ha! You beat me to it. I'm move my post to this thread and delete my thread.

I'll start with this about Senator Kennedy (R) of Louisiana. He is very concerned that consumers of media be told when they are presented with something produced by a robot, and that they be told who owns the robot.

Here's my take on that idea:

First of all, it would be difficult to impossible to police, like the internet itself. People who are capable of creating and programming AI software will always be at least one step ahead of the Affirmative Action hires at whatever agency he envisions enforcing this new regulation.

Second, if it could be enforced, the rule of identifying who owns the "robot" that created the content will be gotten around the same way as the rule about identifying who puts out a political ad. You may see a public services announcement looking at that says it was produced by "People United for Safer Healthcare" of some such that doesn't say that PUSH is actually funded entirely by one side or the other of the abortion issue.

Third, we got enough of regulation of speech by supposedly neutral platforms insisting on adding their own disclaimers to our speech. Maybe we've been conditioned by that to think it would be normal for content we put out that was created by AI to be legally required to have disclaimers. Better for us to learn the media consumer version of caveat emptor, and take everything we see with a big grain of salt.

 

[Robert W]

Ha! You beat me to it. I'm move my post to this thread and delete my thread.

I'll start with this about Senator Kennedy (R) of Louisiana. He is very concerned that consumers of media be told when they are presented with something produced by a robot, and that they be told who owns the robot.

Here's my take on that idea:

First of all, it would be difficult to impossible to police, like the internet itself. People who are capable of creating and programming AI software will always be at least one step ahead of the Affirmative Action hires at whatever agency he envisions enforcing this new regulation.

Second, if it could be enforced, the rule of identifying who owns the "robot" that created the content will be gotten around the same way as the rule about identifying who puts out a political ad. You may see a public services announcement looking at that says it was produced by "People United for Safer Healthcare" of some such that doesn't say that PUSH is actually funded entirely by one side or the other of the abortion issue.

Third, we got enough of regulation of speech by supposedly neutral platforms insisting on adding their own disclaimers to our speech. Maybe we've been conditioned by that to think it would be normal for content we put out that was created by AI to be legally required to have disclaimers. Better for us to learn the media consumer version of caveat emptor, and take everything we see with a big grain of salt.

Yes you are correct. Still if Kennedy thinks this can be exposed, I am for him trying. Course we know the bulk of the media is for Democrats and the media operates as if it is a secret.