It’s already automated, you don’t need AI/ML to perform mass-phishing attempts. LDo you think there’s someone manually-dialing you every time you get a spam call?
The way we mitigate scams today definitely encourages me; the existence of victims does not imply the failure or inadequacy of safeguards keeping up with technology.
While AI stokes the imagination, it’s not so inspiring that I can make the argument in my head for you about why humanity’s better off with access to these tools being kept in the hands of corporations that repeatedly get sued for placing profits over public welfare.
It’s not absurd. The bottleneck for additional predation is not the available toolkit, else we’d see a more obvious correlation between a society’s resource endowment and its callousness.
Handwringing over the threat of AI without substantiating an argument beside “enabled volume” is just self-righteousness.
AI isn’t posed to shift the balance of MFA versus phishers in a way that can’t be meaningfully corrected in the short and long term, so using “scamming” as a means to oppose disseminating tech feels reductive at best.
I don’t think it’s acceptable. I also don’t like the built-in guardrails and closed-sourcing approach to AI currently to stop the robot from saying the n-word, so my problem isn’t with American exceptionalism so much as using “safety” as a means of limiting innovation is trite.
Sure, if you presume organic propaganda is analogous to the level of danger driving within limit.
But a car going into a stroller at 150mph versus 200mph is negligible.
The democratization of generative AI would increase the number of bad agents, but with it would come a better awareness of their tactics; perhaps we push less strollers into the intersections known for drag racing.
Wikipedia is wonderful for what it is. And yet a hobby of mine is finding C-list celebrity pages and finding reference loops between tabloids and the biographical article.
The more the C-lister has engaged with internet wrongthink, the more egregious the subliminal vandalism is, with speculation of domestic abuse, support for unsavory political figures, or similar unfalsifiable slander being common place.
Politically-minded users practice this behavior because they know the platform’s air of authenticity damages their target.
When Google Gemini was asked “who is worse for the world, Elon Musk or Hitler” and went on to equivocate the two because the guardrails led it to believe online transphobia was as sinister as the Holocaust, it begs the question of what the average user will accept as AI nonsense if it affirms their worldview.
Why be obtuse? Advocacy for open-sourcing or at least opposition to the forced set of San Franciscan millennial ethics is not analogous to abolishing voluntary hierarchies.
Half of zoomers get their news from TikTok or Twitch streamers, neither of whom have any incentive for truthfulness over holistic narratives of right and wrong.
The older generations are no better. While ProPublica or WSJ put effort into their investigative journalism, they can’t compete with the volume of trite commentary coming out of other MSM sources.
Generative AI poses no unique threat; society’s capacity to “think once and cut twice” will remain in tact.
The way we mitigate scams today definitely encourages me; the existence of victims does not imply the failure or inadequacy of safeguards keeping up with technology.
While AI stokes the imagination, it’s not so inspiring that I can make the argument in my head for you about why humanity’s better off with access to these tools being kept in the hands of corporations that repeatedly get sued for placing profits over public welfare.