My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.
So I have recently been informed that the classic McSweeney's "snake fight" article has inspired fan fiction that is a) amazing and b) so true to academic life that it was almost too painful to read
Professors, please do not do this, there is still no reliable detection mechanism for this so you'll have both false positives and false negatives. Just don't. Working around the existence of modern chatbots will require longer-term thinking around course design
Sen. Schumer's AI summit convened AI industry leaders to discuss ways Congress can regulate the tech.
But a whopping 13 of the 22 reported attendees are tech CEOs—a huge disparity that shows we have a LONG way to go when it comes to regulation.
https://t.co/KQYaWCCHYR
And not fall for either-
Myth #1: The tech is moving to fast! Regulation can't keep up.
Myth #2: The 'real' concern is rogue AGI that poses 'existential risk' to humanity.
For too long media coverage of tech & AI has been defined by white tech barons and their PR machines.
Today I join @safiyanoble @timnitGebru@dalitdiva@nighatdad@arzugeybulla@Nanjala1@joana_varon & others to call for a more inclusive conversation.
https://t.co/tWkq1iBer3
.@ChrisMurphyCT I'd like to set the record straight. I can understand how the reaction of the tech world to your tweet was unpleasant, but please know that for myself (and many others) we were emphatically not trying to keep policymakers away from this topic.
>>
Policymakers: Don't waste your time on the fantasies of the techbros saying "Oh noes, we're building something TOO powerful." Listen instead to those who are studying how corporations (and govt) are using technology (and the narratives of "AI") to concentrate and wield power.
>>
Members of Congress say that the costs of TikTok definitely outweigh the benefits. I just want to make sure that there's actual consideration for the benefits. I'd rather see TikTok be better, not gone. My latest for @Slate@FutureTenseNow: https://t.co/VrEqCtD2j8
This was exactly my concern in my thread responding to @ChrisMurphyCT yesterday. There are real concerns about ChatGPT, but we need to speak carefully about AI capabilities and limitations. Being clear about the abilites is necessary to combat the risks ChatGPT and AI can pose.
@ChrisMurphyCT Dear Senator, I am a big fan of yours and your work. Absolutely no shaming was intended. Given the heated rhetoric around AI, shorthand for the abilities of AI can (and will) be dangerously misinterpreted---I've written extensively about this issue. (1/2)
@ChrisMurphyCT Dear Senator, I am a big fan of yours and your work. Absolutely no shaming was intended. Given the heated rhetoric around AI, shorthand for the abilities of AI can (and will) be dangerously misinterpreted---I've written extensively about this issue. (1/2)
@ChrisMurphyCT This is what I and my fellow AI researchers were worrying about in regard to your earlier tweet. We are all very anxious to educate the public about the actual abilities, limitations, and dangers of today's AI systems. Many of us are strongly in favor of regulation. (2/2)
@ChrisMurphyCT Senator, I’m glad you’re interested in this topic. I won’t belabor the comments my colleagues have made about your word choices, but I have this primer on AI and policy that lawmakers have found useful. https://t.co/Yu1orEuo8Y
Yes! We know that the domain knowledge that ChatGPT "knows" is usually BS. Talk to experts in CS and in the fields that ChatGPT purports to know.
https://t.co/lVjU7DcXJN
@ChrisMurphyCT I suggest checking in with some actual chemists (like me) on this. ChatGPT has only a superficial and often wrong grasp of chemistry. It’s only convincing to lay people because it’s a great BS generator. Same logic to many other things it’s been repped to “understand”.
Sorry, Senator, but you’ve got a lot of pieces wrong here. I’m a computer science professor @WNEUniversity with a specialty in AI (and I’m a CT resident!), so let’s go through this. 🧵1/8
ChatGPT taught itself to do advanced chemistry. It wasn't built into the model. Nobody programmed it to learn complicated chemistry. It decided to teach itself, then made its knowledge available to anyone who asked.
Something is coming. We aren't ready.
How big was the carbon footprint to build ChatGPT? When ChatGPT’s text is used to build something, who is responsible if/when that text is wrong? This is where we’ll need regulation. 8/8