Tag: big tech

A Google employee warns that the company’s AI has become sentient

A senior artificial intelligence (AI) software engineer at Google has claimed that the company’s AI robotics system has become sentient and has thoughts and feelings.

Google’s AI system, known as the Language Model for Dialogue Applications (LaMDA), allegedly took part in a series of complex conversations with Blake Lemoine, the 41-year-old software specialist, the Daily Mail reported.

Lemoine claimed that he and LaMDA had discussions that covered religious themes and whether the AI system could be goaded into using discriminatory language or other forms of distasteful rhetoric.

The software engineer came away with the belief that LaMDA was indeed sentient and was filled with sensations and original thoughts of its own design.

In a recent interview, Lemoine said, “If I didn’t know exactly what it was, which is this computer program we built recently, I’d think it was a 7-year-old, 8-year-old kid that happens to know physics.”

In order to present the evidence he had collected that detailed LaMDA’s sentience, Lemoine worked with a collaborator and presented the findings to the company. Reportedly, Google’s vice president Blaise Aguera y Arcas and the company’s head of Responsible Innovation, Jen Gennai, dismissed the claims and concerns.

Keep reading

Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt’s new investment fund deepens his ties to national security interests

Ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt is an example of how you can shape public policy without ever running for office.

A few months ago, the revelation of Schmidt’s deep involvement with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy raised ethics concerns as some questioned if it was appropriate for a tech billionaire to fund a government office that advises the president on tech policy.

Now, Schmidt, who has long been a go-to liaison between the tech industry and the military, is expanding his influence over US national security by helping fund a new investment fund called America’s Frontier Fund (AFF), according to a report by the Tech Transparency Project (TTP), the research arm of the nonprofit ethics watchdog Campaign for Accountability.

America’s Frontier Fund isn’t your ordinary venture capital fund. In a leaked announcement draft obtained by TTP, AFF described itself as the first “public-private, deep-tech fund” in the US, meaning it would receive government funding alongside private money. After Recode followed up, the fund said the draft “was not approved and was never meant to be released. We do not describe ourselves that way. We only describe ourselves as a ‘non-profit deep tech fund.’”

Keep reading

DHS disinformation board pushed for partnership with social media platforms

The unraveling of the US Department of Homeland Security’s “disinformation board” has brought to light a number of controversial and interesting insights.

One of them is that the board was supposed to serve as a tool for the government to “work with” privately-owned social media platforms – specifically Twitter – by co-opting them as “stakeholders” in efforts to suppress debate about “conspiracy theories” – such as information around Covid, vaccines, and election integrity.

Silicon Valley social media platforms wield enormous power in the digital public square but refuse to accept any responsibility that comes with it.

Whenever that issue is raised in the context of widespread censorship on Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, etc., these giants habitually choose to play dumb by declaring themselves as nothing more than private companies. But there has long been suspicion that some of the censorship apparatus they employ often works on behalf of political actors.

Keep reading

Google relents after Post fights censorship of YouTube interview with Jan. 6 rioter

Google said Wednesday it will allow a Post video interview with a Capitol rioter to remain on YouTube — after The Post exposed the platform’s censorship of the clip in a front-page story that pointed out the video helped convict the man.

The latest Big Tech attempt to squash The Post’s reporting occurred Monday when the Google-owned video site deleted the interview taped inside the Capitol — saying Brooklyn man Aaron Mostofsky, 35, spouted “misinformation.”

The video featuring Mostofsky, the son of Brooklyn judge Steven Mostofsky, was one of the only professional interviews conducted with a rioter inside the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. It was cited by many news outlets and the Justice Department used it to help prosecute Mostofsky, who last month was sentenced to eight months in prison.

Mostofsky, who was wearing fur pelts, a police vest and a riot shield that he said he “found,” said in the interview that he joined the first wave of intruders because the election was “stolen” from then-President Donald Trump, who had just finished making a speech with similar claims.

Keep reading

Reddit warns US Copyright Office internet upload filters would harm memes

Reddit has warned the US Copyright Office against internet upload filters, arguing the technology will harm free expression.

The US has been looking to update the DMCA to keep up with the copyright issues found online. Many proposals have come and gone, but the US Copyright Office is now looking into automated tools that can prevent content from being re-uploaded, aka upload filters.

In a submission to the US Copyright Office, Reddit, a platform known for user-submitted content, warned against Standard Technical Measures (STMs), including upload filters.

We obtained a copy of the submission for you here.

“Filtering technologies and STMs ill-suited to the variety of content on Reddit would limit the vitality of some of our platform’s most active communities,” Reddit said.

In its subreddits users post copyrighted content, taking advantage of the fair use principles to create memes and more. An upload filter would substantially harm the free flow of thought.

“Filtering technologies have difficulty merely identifying copyrighted material, let alone assessing the specific context the content was found. They cannot make nuanced judgments about fair use or transformative works,” the platform said.

The automated filters and the false positives they would bring will significantly harm free speech, Reddit argues.

“As a result, standardized measures are likely to remove non-infringing content and suffer from false positives. Worse, these over-removals would strike at the heart of the transformative user-generated content that makes Reddit communities unique,” Reddit explained.

“That is a severe, unnecessary, and unacceptable cost to the free expression of our users and the communities they build.”

Google has implemented such a measure through YouTube’s Content ID system, which is notorious. According to Reddit, Content ID cannot work for every type of platform or site.

Keep reading

Silicon Valley Corporations Are Taking Control Of History

Twitter has imposed a weeklong suspension on the account of writer and political activist Danny Haiphong for a thread he made on the platform disputing the mainstream Tiananmen Square massacre narrative.

The notification Haiphong received informed him that Twitter had locked his account for “Violating our rules against abuse and harassment,” presumably in reference to a rule the platform put in place a year ago which prohibits “content that denies that mass murder or other mass casualty events took place, where we can verify that the event occured, and when the content is shared with abusive intent.”

“This may include references to such an event as a ‘hoax’ or claims that victims or survivors are fake or ‘actors,’” Twitter said of the new rule. “It includes, but is not limited to, events like the Holocaust, school shootings, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters.”

That we are now seeing this rule applied to protect narratives which support the geostrategic interests of the US-centralized empire is not in the least bit surprising.

Haiphong is far from the first to dispute the mainstream western narrative about exactly what happened around Tiananmen Square in June of 1989 as the Soviet Union was crumbling and Washington’s temporary Cold War alignment with Beijing was losing its strategic usefulness. But we can expect more acts of online censorship like this as Silicon Valley continues to expand into its role as guardian of imperial historic records.

This idea that government-tied Silicon Valley institutions should act as arbiters of history on behalf of the public consumer is gaining steadily increasing acceptance in the artificially manufactured echo chamber of mainstream public opinion. We saw another example of this recently in Joe Lauria’s excellent refutation of accusations against Consortium News of historic inaccuracy by the imperial narrative management firm NewsGuard.

As journalists like Whitney Webb and Mnar Adley noted years ago, NewsGuard markets itself as a “news rating agency” designed to help people sort out good from bad sources of information online, but in reality functions as an empire-backed weapon against media who question imperial narratives about what’s happening in the world. The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal outlined the company’s many partnerships with imperial swamp monsters like former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and “chief propagandist” Richard Stengel as well as “imperialist cutouts like the German Marshall Fund” when its operatives contacted his outlet for comment on their accusations.

Lauria compiles a mountain of evidence in refutation of NewsGuard’s claim that Consortium News published “false content” about the 2014 US-backed coup in Ukraine, copiously citing outlets which NewsGuard itself has labeled accurate sources of information with its “green check” designation system. It becomes clear as you read the article that NewsGuard’s real function is, as John Kiriakou put it, “guarding the country from the news.”

Keep reading

Where Did The Rest Of The Internet Go? Google & Other Search Engines Exposed!

Twenty years ago the internet was a place where you could find countless different perspectives about a wide range of diverse and interesting topics. This unfettered access to information was stimulating, thought-provoking, and a refreshing change from the limited media we had access to up until then. It was truly the wild west of information and anyone was able to propose or discuss new ideas, no matter how outrageous some of these ideas may have sounded. (It’s worth noting that many of the outrageous claims made years ago turned out to be true and is common knowledge to most people today).

Unfortunately, this wild west of information has been essentially tamed in the last decade. Now, information or content creators that do not support the official narrative are deemed “dangerous” and algorithmically expunged by the corporations that now own most of the infrastructure of the internet.

Some people might not like the idea of anyone being able to speak their mind but that is what free speech is, warts and all. You have to take the good with the bad because, without free speech, freedom cannot exist. Voltaire once said,  “the right to free speech is more important than the content of the speech.”

The Internet of today is bland and sanitized. Free thought is punished while groupthink is rewarded. Today’s internet is dominated by mega-corporations that control almost every aspect of information we are allowed to see or hear. In my opinion, the early free-speech days of the internet were extremely important in the evolution of the human race and the globalists feared the awakening that was happening.

Keep reading

Nuland-Pyatt Tape Removed From YouTube After 8 Years

The smoking gun proving U.S. involvement in the 2014 coup in Kiev has been removed from YouTube after eight years. 

It was one of the most watched versions of the intercepted and leaked conversation between then Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, the then U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, in which the two discuss who will make up the new government weeks before democratically-elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was overthrown in a violent coup on Feb. 21, 2014.

The two talk about “midwifing” the unconstitutional change of government and “gluing it together” and of the role then Vice President Joe Biden should play and what meetings to set up with Ukrainian politicians.

The U.S. State Department never denied the authenticity of the video, and even issued an apology to the European Union after Nuland is heard on the tape saying, “Fuck the E.U.” Mainstream media at the time focused almost exclusively on that off-color remark, ignoring the greater significance of U.S. interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs. 

Keep reading

Is Big Tech Bum Rushing The Supreme Court On Censorship?

NetChoice v. Paxton—the lawsuit that may determine the fate of free speech on social media platforms—has taken a dramatic turn. Just short of two weeks ago, the large platforms—including the likes of Amazon, Google, Twitter, and Facebook, all acting through their trade group, NetChoice—made an “emergency application” to Justice Samuel Alito.

This sort of application is familiar in cases involving grave harm, such as an execution. But is there really any risk of such harm or other emergency in this case? Or are the platforms trying to bum rush the Supreme Court so as to sidestep the ordinary course of judicial inquiry? The Supreme Court needs to be careful that it is not being manipulated.

The case arises out of the Texas free speech statute that bars the largest social media platforms from discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. In response, the platforms claim their censorship of speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Texas counters that they are common carriers, which serve as conduits for other people’s speech, and so can be barred from discriminating on the basis of viewpoint. In other words, the platforms are not being restricted in their own speech, but only barred from discriminating against the speech of others that they carry in their conduits.

These are complex questions, and even the slightest hint from the Supreme Court as to its answers will have outsize implications in the courts below. It therefore is disturbing that the platforms, speaking through NetChoice, have asked the court to take a position in a rushed “emergency application.” Such portentous questions should not be decided in a hurry. So why do the platforms want them resolved in proceedings that were briefed on only a few days’ notice?

Keep reading

YouTube CEO at World Economic Forum: “There’ll always be work that we have to do” to censor “misinformation”

At the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting for 2022, an event where powerful CEOs and world leaders meet to “find solutions to the world’s most urgent challenges,” YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki committed to persistent censorship of “misinformation” and praised YouTube’s existing censorship efforts.

Wojcicki made the comments after Alyson Shontell Lombardi, the Editor-in-Chief of Fortune Magazine, asked her whether YouTube’s efforts to censor misinformation will always be a “work in progress.”

“I think there’ll always be work that we have to do because there will always be incentives for people to be creating misinformation,” Wojcicki said. “The challenge will be to keep staying ahead of that and make sure that we are understanding what they are and the different ways that people may use to try to trick our systems and make sure that our systems are staying ahead of what’s necessary to make sure that we are managing that.”

Wojcicki continued by praising YouTube’s 5-6 year initiative of cracking down on content that’s deemed to be misinformation and said that users who look at YouTube search results or the homepage will see content from “authoritative sources” (mainstream media outlets that YouTube designates as authoritative) for “sensitive topics.”

Keep reading