The dirty underbelly of AI
We recorded 2 claims from this post. 1 was checked against evidence. 1 can’t be checked. 2 more are held. Read the post at its source.
Claims from this post (2)
In the order they appear in the post. Each quotation is the speaker’s words in this post. A label such as “Supported” or “Can’t be checked” is the claim’s current assessment; its page has the evidence and the reasons.
Assessment: Can’t be checkedSaid
“But here’s someone else the AI industry is taking advantage of: you.”
What we tested: The AI industry is taking advantage of ordinary people, in this context through harvesting their personal data.
Assessment: SupportedSaid
“Your private data are going to feed the insatiable beast, too — like it or not.”
What we tested: People's private data will be used to feed data-hungry AI systems, whether or not they like it.
What happened: Google describes reviewers assessing users' nonpublic conversations and supplying improvements used by its models. The same FAQ explicitly includes generative-model training among uses of saved activity when Keep Activity is enabled; e2 establishes the default-participation policy. (Google, )
Held from this post (2)
These records did not pass every check, so nothing about them is published. Held is not a finding.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: The current AI paradigm needs so much data that the entire public internet does not seem to be enough.
- The criteria are ambiguous. Our reading, not assessed: An AI paradigm that could learn much of what it needed to be effective in the world without going through all of a person's personal data is imaginable but does not yet exist.