Encode Justice - The Zoomers are coming for AI

Encode Justice is a group of zoomers (and those who support them) who want to demand change to AI. Sometimes it seems like they come close to understanding the issue, but then suggest policies that are counter to it. I saw pic related show up in Firefox's Pocket (non-sponsored) meaning there must have been enough interest to get people saving/reading it.

The plans they lobby for are detailed in https://ai2030.encodejustice.org/ . Not all are bad, they even have a bit about maintaining anonymity and privacy on the Internet and rightfully point out some the problems with corporate AI algorithms pushing towards profit etc. However, many of their focal points and demands either miss the mark, are at cross purposes, or end up far more restrictive and hostile to AI being widely used for the benefit of all instead of just a few proprietary tech megacorps. They start to whine about how there needs to be legislation to stop deepfake porn by technical means instead of social and other legal ones (ie when image manipulation through photoshop and the like became widespread, society learned that a picture is not always 'real', instead of demanding that all manipulations be prohibited.) It would be better demanding users having more right to their likeness, privacy, and get things taken down. They focus on preventing "misinformation", lament that ChatGPT can be jailbroken to "dispense bomb instructions", are angry that young people are connecting with chatbots instead of each other, and have a big focus on making sure that "AI can only enhance, but not supplant human workforces" which is laughably misguided instead of demanding that we all get the benefit of that replacement.

They should be asking for FOSS, self-hosting, open data sets, among other changes...but instead, will make "proper" AI only available to billionaire megacorps who pay lip service to their contradictory demands, using it to strangle any potential competitors

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Die For Epstein's Client List Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Words words words brownoid femoid yapping why not suck my wiener

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      that

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Here we see an example of the phonegay degenerating into incoherent babble of tourist buzzword homosexualry when confronted with more than a single line of text.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Try reformatting your post in familiar templates used in YouTube, TikTok etc
        I'm not necessarily talking about memes, but there seem to be certain ways to say things. That way even if the text is long the familiarity of the phrase is processed in less units and it bypasses a lot of the linguistic processing that tires the phonegay's brain.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, I suppose I could just yell about zoomers with their heads up their asses trying to ruin AI and take away your waifus. Guess it was my fault for remembering the days when IQfyentoomen used to talk about tech related issues at relative length like FOSTA/SESTA, MPAA/RIAA bullshit, proprietary lockdown, how the EFF or FSF were fighting some stupid tard demanding censorship or whatever the hell. Suggestion noted, though anon.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Even if this group isn't compromised in some way, they appear to have indeed fallen for "huge entities will be responsible and punished for crimes, individuals won't"; the opposite is what happens in reality, especially when it comes to punishment. I like that they're addressing tracking, monitoring, etc., but it's already somewhat misguided by talking about how AI systems have more trouble identifying Black folk or have a bias against poor schools. They also want global authorities for danger mitigation and research, both are rather concerning. They have too much faith in the system that is visibly mistreating them (hence the need to make noise) and too little faith in the individual, whom they acknowledge is the target if injustice. They're quite right that schools should teach about this, but they're missing the point by keeping it to a limited subset of what really needs to be taught.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, I got the same feeling. They had some reasonable points or identified certain problems, but their solutions are massively flawed and sometimes they dont seem to understand the whole picture. I wonder if these types of groups are worth interceding with and trying to start a dialogue to see how open they are to certain viewpoints, or if they're basically much like the stereotypical social media artgay AI hater who will give you all matters of high minded justifications for their intransigence, but its really just self interested homosexualry.

      For instance, it hard not to feel like the "AI must only help human jobs, not replace. We want guarantees you won't replace us we need those jobs" feels like the mirror of the "no, we need to keep digging and using fossil fuels because that's how I make my living frick the rest". It seems they should be more open to people saying we need to adjust our society's laws, functions, conventions etc..in other ways and ensure the benefit of AI is widepread, as opposed to pulling a "Sorry Henry Ford, you can make anything you want that makes the horse and buggy faster, but you can't replace it!" style viewpoint.

      This shit seems like the kind of thing (just like with the REEEing artgays) we need to get on top of and structure responses and alternatives otherwise groups like this will get laws passed that end up making the benefits of AI less available to individuals, less FOSS self hosting models and data sets being required for "serious"usage etc.. and when it happens the usual suspects ignoring these people pushing for legislation now will cry about some sort of israeli conspiracy and nobody could have seen it coming etc.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I think trying to contact them is a great idea, at least to see how they respond to FOSS and individuals using the tech. If they're resistant to the idea, it's probably a lost cause. The "enhance, not replace jobs" really pissed me off as well. They talk about "uplifting people", but want them to work jobs that will likely be even more soul-crushing due to tech advancing.

        I think fighting for the common man here is gonna be very hard. The difficulty keeps increasing in general. For example: stuff being FOSS is great from the transparency point of view, but there are too many (stupid) arguments against it that appeal to the normalgay, so it's gonna be a hard sell. Most other stuff is similar. The hysteria (which is exactly what this is in the end) boils down to "we want safety!!!!!!!!!!!" and they are probably gonna get it, at an extreme cost.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >contacting
          Thanks anon, I'll give it a shot. I think its going to take a diplomatic approach but it has to be worthwhile. I wonder if some of the anons in the Local Models General, Stable Diffusion etc.. who have the knowledge about how the tech works and can rebuke some of the arguments made by those other groups I mentioned above (ie artgays yelling about AI STEALING ART etc) while having the ability to interact with others remembering they're NOT on an imageboard; last thing we need is giving any more ammo to " AI tech bro nazi incel spaghetti spilling refugees from the hacker known as 4CHON are HARASSING us" types

          >Enhance not replace, uplifting people
          Yeah, I agree it was a stupid contradictory argument. At the most favorable, it may be a legitimate desire to avoid any of the groups crying about AI (legitimately or otherwise) from being 'hurt', but they don't realize that they're creating a system where AI's benefit will be restricted only to the megacorps who can afford to due the expensive "due diligence", with benefit of AI/tech advance going to the top 1% in control using it.

          >common man, FOSS
          You think? I was hoping that it may be easier to explain some of the benefits of FOSS etc.. these days even to normalgays given the increasing prominence of Linux, the Steam Deck / Valve FOSS etc, contrasted with the increasing invasive , limitations of proprietary, software as a service, streaming-out-of-user's control, all the data breaches of proprietary software that was hidden by for profit companies etc. What arguments are appealing to normalgays currently that you think leads uphill? I will grant that the social media issue and lack of conceptual private alternatives is one I can see, but otherwise I didn't think it was necessarily getting harder?

          >safety at extreme cost
          The question is if they will notice and if they even value what is lost; made more frustrating because WE do both and are negatively affected by THEIR demands.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >arguments
            It's not that they are getting harder in the traditional sense, but I'd wager that the Overton window itself is moving away from where these arguments could be seen as reasonable and to be considered. Even if you put aside things like regulatory capture and other large moves, and just try to sit down with someone and disassemble the issues and discuss them is getting more difficult. I can get my points across when talking face to face with a friend, but diluted with trolls and shills, online spaces themselves make it difficult. Of all places, you would think people here would understand. There are some who do, of course, but even if you filter all the noise you still get a lot of contempt for privacy, FOSS, etc.

            "(F)OSS empowers the [buzzword] to do [bad things]"; an easy argument to make, not easy to debunk. The issue stems largely from how large entities (as opposed to individuals) are viewed. It irks me to no end, having had this argument countless times, but at this point I am certain that the average person today will forever be unable to reconcile this: monetary penalties aren't at all reasonable when trying to punish these large entities. If the same crime were committed by a random dude, you can bet your ass that he will be going behind bars for a long time. But a large enough company will at best have to pay chump change. A large entity usually has a lot of people approving immoral and even illegal decisions, and refuses to stop them day after day, yet no punishment directly reaches them. In the end, it's impossible to fix this issue; the US crushing Google would be the equivalent of a man chopping his arm off.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >overton window
            You know... that's depressing but it might be correct. I mean, regulatory capture and the like should be able to be identified as universally harmful - even complete disparate ideological viewpoints have "the elites/bads are paying/lobbying for/have gotten in the way of gov't doing good things and have perverted it to do bad things" concepts near ubiqitiously; now who the elites/bads are and what is good vs what is bad , what the motivation of the elites etc.. may be compete horse shit, but the overall concept seems to be easily understood at least in an abstract sense. I get what you mean about trolls and bullshit adding a lot of noise to the ratio, but putting aside this place's more unique aspects I can see how things are harder

            >arguments to debunk, large entities and more
            Yeah I agree its frustrating to have to keep dealing with those arguments regarding FOSS or conceptual privacy, anonymity etc...I hoped additional tech exposure and sophistication would make it easier with a new generation, but, while I can't be sure if the "zoomers, with the geeky exceptions as any generation, are actually more technically inept thanks to consumption devices" bit is accurate, it does seem to not help their understanding of this particular case; there may also be a compounding issue since social media for less desire/respect for privacy, anonymity, the old hacker ethos etc.
            TBC..

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >arguments
            It's not that they are getting harder in the traditional sense, but I'd wager that the Overton window itself is moving away from where these arguments could be seen as reasonable and to be considered. Even if you put aside things like regulatory capture and other large moves, and just try to sit down with someone and disassemble the issues and discuss them is getting more difficult. I can get my points across when talking face to face with a friend, but diluted with trolls and shills, online spaces themselves make it difficult. Of all places, you would think people here would understand. There are some who do, of course, but even if you filter all the noise you still get a lot of contempt for privacy, FOSS, etc.

            "(F)OSS empowers the [buzzword] to do [bad things]"; an easy argument to make, not easy to debunk. The issue stems largely from how large entities (as opposed to individuals) are viewed. It irks me to no end, having had this argument countless times, but at this point I am certain that the average person today will forever be unable to reconcile this: monetary penalties aren't at all reasonable when trying to punish these large entities. If the same crime were committed by a random dude, you can bet your ass that he will be going behind bars for a long time. But a large enough company will at best have to pay chump change. A large entity usually has a lot of people approving immoral and even illegal decisions, and refuses to stop them day after day, yet no punishment directly reaches them. In the end, it's impossible to fix this issue; the US crushing Google would be the equivalent of a man chopping his arm off.

            I'm not gonna claim that this comes entirely from brainwashing, but the average normalgay just sees these huge entities as "visible", versus random individuals. People believe in fallacies like the risk being low when it comes to companies; that justice will be dealt quickly and swiftly; that millions of other customers can't be wrong; even if they are wrong, millions of others are gonna be having the same issue and thus solutions will be effective and swift; the government would never do that; etc. Meanwhile, the individual is seen as guilty until proven innocent, and because there's no realistic way of disproving that, you really need to have a good case ready. There is no imagination when it comes to an individual having hobbies, side hustles and whatnot. They can only think of AI being abused by such. Everyone seems to be oblivious to the fact that companies and governments are literally comprised of these same individuals and, because they are given so much power, now cannot be stopped with just activism and pleas. The small man needs a level playing field if he wants to stay free, and even then it's gonna be hard. Perhaps the whole thing stems more from the lack of faith in oneself that the general public has. The lack of faith in being able to discern and do the right thing.
            >The question is if they will notice and if they even value what is lost
            Because they're so young, they likely have little reference of what it was like before. So the loss won't be as significant for them. This by itself is hard to look at, but it also feeds into the previous paragraphs.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    surely a synod of random ass zoomers will make a difference

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If it was just zoomers in this organization alone that would be one thing, but they have backing and connection with many other allies for "responsible" AI usage, some with even worse definition of "responsible". They are going to make common cause with the AI hating NOOO ICKY AI NO LOOKY AT MY DONUT STEEL artgays and related 'creative/IP' types, all the various "think of the children, fake CSAM, deepfake porn " groups, MISINFORMATION PROTECTING DEMOCRACY ministry of truth types, perpetually offended politically correct types, various big tech AI interests both hardware ( and software focused who want regulation to keep competitors from being able to challenge them, various forms of "the kids aren't all right / the Internet ruined them " and luddite adjacent groups among others.

      She is a useful idiot. She wants the things that western governments and big tech corporations already want, which is why she is getting attention. Her "policy" ideas are basically all shorthand for "Give the government and big tech more power at the expense of everyone else".

      These people can never explain how a world where an article you read online might be fake and generated by AI is supposed to be worse than a world where the government and big tech use AI to effectively abolish privacy, and completely censor any information they feel like censoring, in the name of knowing if that article was typed out by a human or a computer.

      The issue is the government could actually pass policies to fix this shit and in fact NEEDS to because this isn't going to be fixed by a market based solution when its too easy for them to profit by doing the "wrong" stuff. Even this group kinda sorta acknowledges this, but their solutions are so misguided they don't realize its going to cause more damage to everyone except big tech and the cottage industry of consultants around those using AI "responsibly".

      We should be wary of big tech by far especially big AI companies, but we need to get people on our side (including trying to sway this group if possible) for other plans - like having the EFF and FSF on our side, lobbying the gov't just as others are doing for policies that can actually establish AI's benefit to be spread widely, open source and spec etc. so its not good to think gov't is conceptually the problem - its just a matter who's making up said gov't and who they are listening to.

      Why are zoomers so trapped in the social media world and see nothing else? Why is Sneha Revanur so hyperfocused on polishing this turd?
      Can they not envision a future beyond it, or at least be humble enough accept that it's a tiny abnormality towards an fantastic future?

      I think some of them never saw a world before it and a whole other host of issues that came from that; Those who refuse to listen when those of us from before suggest changes is frustrating.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        good, frick ai but even so the zoomers will ultimately achieve nothing

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    tl;dr

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    She is a useful idiot. She wants the things that western governments and big tech corporations already want, which is why she is getting attention. Her "policy" ideas are basically all shorthand for "Give the government and big tech more power at the expense of everyone else".

    These people can never explain how a world where an article you read online might be fake and generated by AI is supposed to be worse than a world where the government and big tech use AI to effectively abolish privacy, and completely censor any information they feel like censoring, in the name of knowing if that article was typed out by a human or a computer.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why are zoomers so trapped in the social media world and see nothing else? Why is Sneha Revanur so hyperfocused on polishing this turd?
    Can they not envision a future beyond it, or at least be humble enough accept that it's a tiny abnormality towards an fantastic future?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    She just wants to prevent sub-8s from having sex with AIs because women hate men who aren't chad. Anything else she's talking about doesn't actually matter to her. Women just hate non-chads because they're bad people who are lookists, so you shouldn't listen to anything they say.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Sometimes it seems like they come close to understanding the issue, but then suggest policies that are counter to it
    So a false flag group trying to blackwash AI regulation. Next thread

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Even if one assumed that was true, they're getting prominent and making connections with others who tangentially share common supposed goals so it a concern. However, its never wise to assume conspiratorial malice absent extraordinary evidence justifying it, when stupidity or misguided dogmatic belief can be suitable explanations.

      I feel the current response to AI is a delayed response to algorithmic controls of content and advertising. Win10 has been gathering info and pushing ads for 8 years now. Normies are only concerned now because of some LLM-like model now gets to see some of that info?

      The Education part seems the only common ground here since I think the public, especially media outlets, are still incredibly misinformed what AI is. I have zero faith with this low understanding that they can try to beat big tech with regulation; these people simply do not know how the current "new" features big tech is pushing was built on letting them self-regulate their data collection and usage for decades.

      I think its something akin to a wound that never healed right in the first place, has been injured again in a more damaging way. We're close to 30 years (or at very least 20) years behind proper regulation of online conduct including privacy, anonymity, "right to be forgotten" and everything related to personal data ..and much more. We didn't properly address any of those things at the time - we didn't institute a default policy of
      >A company may only collect enough data from its users to provide requested beneficial services, directly. Any retained information must be stored for the minimal amount of time and purged ASAP; it cannot be shared with third parties outside of very specific user directed circumstances.
      There was a time when advertising was done without the profiling, data mining, extrapolated faux "permission by way of use" and all the other problems we're still dealing with. Then came the next wave including all the data mining, the gacha/f2p and mobile gaming market, al matters of explotation based on a handful of companies making a fortune by selling, profiling, analyzing, selling the analysis, correlating etc.. user data while users are oblivious how much their data is actually worth. Social media stacked atop this and added a firehose worth of new user data and connections, centralizing it a few sites etc. Then comes AI - which can take from, and do all the above faster and more powerful. There IS a difference in kind not just in scale when AI is added to the mix. Normalgays may nt have understood all of th past contributions, but AI's turbocharged old + new is visible.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I feel the current response to AI is a delayed response to algorithmic controls of content and advertising. Win10 has been gathering info and pushing ads for 8 years now. Normies are only concerned now because of some LLM-like model now gets to see some of that info?

    The Education part seems the only common ground here since I think the public, especially media outlets, are still incredibly misinformed what AI is. I have zero faith with this low understanding that they can try to beat big tech with regulation; these people simply do not know how the current "new" features big tech is pushing was built on letting them self-regulate their data collection and usage for decades.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Some things are easy to agree with like autonomous weapons etc. but the part about foundation models where they talk about heckin disinformation and bomb making instructions was very concerning. They are obviously calling for restrictions on open source and further locking down of proprietary. models. So it's pozzed.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why has technology gotten into the hands of morons?

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    And here I thought this thread was going to be about activists promoting website character encoding that humans can read and bots can not to block LLM's ... or even better, give LLM's bunk words while humans get the legit words. Oh well.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Ask the general how well those strategies work against LLM training and they'll ask how secure a commercial VPN is for your browsing history.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    why is suckdeep representing zoomers to the government? what kind of money is behind these lobbyists?

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What you guys need to understand is that these people are extremely unintelligent. They listen to boomer morons claiming that AI is a literal demon talking through the screen and just eat it up.
    They know NOTHING about free and open source media, most don't understand what "media" means. All they understand is that they think AI is evil, full stop. Convincing them otherwise is akin to convincing a 90 year old that Facebook steals her data.
    These people are a lost cause. The best solution, I belive, is to lobby FOR FOSS AI available to the everyman instead of multi-billionairs like these useful idiots are being used for.

    The group won't understand reason because they are absolutely tech-illiterate

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *