>The government doesn’t have to ask NYT to restrict opinions.
This 1988 model of the flow of information in free societies and their media gatekeepers was probably correct. Nearly 40 years later it is not. The digital content flows in free societies is so diverse today that widely read content extremely critical of whichever parties or power-holders you'd like to read about is everywhere and easy to find. Not the case in authoritarian systems.
Distribution is key. I've used some mind blowing betas from AI LLM startups recently who just put disclaimers on potential content issues. They are amazing and don't get a ton of use. The fact Google has seemingly the best product (just not releasing until they're ready) and over 3 billion users makes me think getting the world to use won't be an issue.
Firstly, I think your position is pretty popular given thread.
At your point, I think it's worth considering widespread acceptance of ridiculous ideas that currently exist (amount of people who believe articles from The Onion for example). There's no harm there but when the content is convincing video being used by nefarious actors I think you could make argument potential for harm is real, especially given the media content bubbles on both sides that people have segregated to in social media age.
My sense has been that Google and Deepmind ML has been pretty ingrained across the board in Google services. If they're still producing the the most advanced AI research, I don't see why that wouldn't be introduced into future products as well.
I agree the ethicist types are very lame but if they were trying to be opaque and obscure how the sausage is made I don't think they would have released as many AI papers they have over past decade. It also seems to me that imagen is way better than stable diffusion. They're not aiming for a product that caters to AI creatives. They aiming for tools that would benefit a 3B+ userbase.
As much as advertising can suck, I highly prefer not having all news sites hard paywalled and not needing premium subscriptions for essential services like search, email and YouTube.
This 1988 model of the flow of information in free societies and their media gatekeepers was probably correct. Nearly 40 years later it is not. The digital content flows in free societies is so diverse today that widely read content extremely critical of whichever parties or power-holders you'd like to read about is everywhere and easy to find. Not the case in authoritarian systems.