554
America wants AI that doesn't care about misinformation, DEI, and climate change (lemmy.ca)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
154 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Trump administration recently published "America's AI Action Plan". One of the first policy actions from the document is to eliminate references to misinformation, diversity, equity, inclusion, and climate change from the NIST's AI Risk Framework.

Lacking any sense of irony, the very next point states LLM developers should ensure their systems are "objective and free from top-down ideological bias".

Par for the course for Trump and his cronies, but the world should know what kind of AI the US wants to build.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

Thank you anyone who profiles entire people with stereotypes and outright lies is a bigot, no matter what they say

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Like how some americans see the Middel East, Russia, China, Israel, Palestine, Mexico etc etc etc..

    Its not nice when its going the other way, is it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't do that because it wouldn't be right. Doesn't matter who did what to me in the past.

    For instance if you were a plumber and you intentionally smashed a piece of furniture while at a clients house, does that mean all plumbers are violently vandalizing people's homes ,no.

    Because adult human beings know that the actions of one do not define the actions of all.

    I am not changing this position. You can get the last word, throw an insult at me or do nothing.

    Choice is yours but I'm done. I don't have to defend the correct position. It is correct.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I just, I do not understand why this upsets people so much.

    I work for a company that does things I don't want them to do all the time. I've never felt like someone saying "[the company] wants to do [this thing]" was ever referring to me specifically whatsoever.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    What if they said employees of your company all support a thing? That would include you.

    It's absolutely insane to say all Americans support Trump when he has a net negative approval rating pretty much everywhere, including red states. Look at the opinion polls, most people don't like what's going on. Yet for some reason, people claim the majority of us like him for some reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    What if they said employees of your company all support a thing? That would include you.

    But no one is doing this. America is a state.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    But they do for countries, when they say "Americans do X" when it's just the administration doing it and it's unpopular.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    "Americans do X"

    *America. Look at the title again.

    I gotta be honest, I don't understand what you're fighting for here. That people in Finland will have a slightly better opinion of you? Mexico will know you're one of the good ones?

    Russia has done a lot of disagreeable things, I've got to imagine its people are pretty upset about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I'm talking about comments a few levels up the chain talking about overgeneralizations, as well as the very common loose language online where people attribute problems to the people of a nation rather than its leaders.

    I have no issues with Chinese or Russian people, I have issues w/ their respective governments. Yet we get hate crimes against the people that come from a region just because their government did something stupid.

    I'm pushing against his culture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    where people attribute problems to the people of a nation rather than its leaders.

    But you're the one doing this. I'm not conflating people with country here. OP isn't either.

    Yet we get hate crimes against the people that come from a region just because their government did something stupid.

    Are you proposing that racists, when they hear "Russian government" instead of "Russia," will stop being racist? I don't really know what to say to that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (1 child)

    When racists hear "Russians do X," yes, they'll attribute that to many ethnic Russians outside of Russia.

    Look at the Japanese internment during WW2, tons of people were accused of being spys and interned simply because of their ethnicity, even if they had lived here for decades (or were even born here). Japanese people got mistreated for years after WW2 just because they were Japanese, without any association w/ the Japanese government. Why? Because propaganda associated the terrible actions of the Japanese government with the Japanese people and turned US citizens on each other.

    So yes, I will push back on anything that even smells like that kind of BS. I will not tolerate generalizations like this, even if most "normal" people understand what it means. People already associate Jewish people in the US w/ Israel, even though many (most?) actually don't like the Israeli state. So no, I will not sit back and allow casual intolerance to go unquestioned.

    Yes, it's not the point of the article, but I saw similar wording several times in comments on this post, hence my comment here (it seemed the most relevant subthread to drop it into).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    "Russians do X,"

    *Russia.

    You keep making this mistake. I'm starting to think you're doing it deliberately.

    Because propaganda associated the terrible actions of the Japanese government with the Japanese people

    Are you not reinforcing the idea that a country's name refers to its people by insisting that everyone else and not you are the ones nefariously conflating the two?

    The idea that a people are the same as their country is nationalism. How are you battling nationalism by preventing people from saying a country's name?

    If you said "Netanyahu did this," and fair, he does a lot of things, would the racist not assume that the Isreali people elected him and thus agree with him anyway? Because they're "of the same kind."

    You seem to think that their racism is derived from a simple misconception and not, like, a deep-seated fear and paranoia.

    If you see someone say "Isreal does this," then assume they mean the state. If you see someone say "let's bomb Isreal into the shadow realm," then politely snap their neck. It's not that hard.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    You keep making this mistake. I’m starting to think you’re doing it deliberately.

    It's not a mistake, I see that type of language a lot. If the language was specifically "Russia does X", then it's not a problem, because it's referring to the government.

    The idea that a people are the same as their country is nationalism. How are you battling nationalism by preventing people from saying a country’s name?

    Nationalism sucks, and I'm trying to distinguish between the country doing a thing (i.e. its leadership) and the people doing a thing. The people in the US elected Trump, but the people in the US aren't doing what Trump did, so it's absolutely fallacious to say something like "Americans are deporting people," when that's being done by the administration, not everyday people.

    That's it.

    would the racist not assume that the Isreali people elected him and thus agree with him anyway?

    Sure, maybe. But a lot more people would get riled up if we said "Israelis did this," and then associate that with random Jewish people (most of whom have probably never been to Israel). Netanyahu/Israel doing a thing is quite different from Israelis doing a thing, because the latter has a lot more risk of lumping in non-Israelis into that nonsense.

    Racism is certainly deeper than a headline/misconception, my point is that it can be stoked by loose language. Its that loose language that I'd like people to be more careful about.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    So it's a stereotype to describe what a country is literally doing ... okay.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •