USSOCOM contracts out AI that targets "disinformation"

[durangodawood]

Nobody regulating the internet?

Sounds interesting. But how does "nobody" administer websites? Or collect the funds needed to maintain them? Or set standards so all the parts can communicate?

 

[Wings like Eagles]

the One True Church?

Done - we will figure out which one that is in another thread.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Sounds interesting. But how does "nobody" administer a website or collect the funds needed to maintain it?

How is it done now.

 

[Belk]

Nobody regulating the internet?

Only those who don't understand how it works believe this to be possible. It is like proposing we get rid of centralized control for airplanes and have each component self govern. It simply will not work.

 

[Belk]

the One True Church?

And yay, the holy TCP/IP address was assigned from on high via the DHCP server of righteousness.

 

[durangodawood]

Done - we will figure out which one that is in another thread.

Ah the can thats still being kicked down the road 2000 years later.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

Just look what AI already did to Harry Potter.

 

[The Hour IS AT HAND]

Sounds interesting. But how does "nobody" administer websites? Or collect the funds needed to maintain them? Or set standards so all the parts can communicate?

Not saying I have the answers for this, just a "third" option. But there is a difference between websites and the internet, right?

Only those who don't understand how it works believe this to be possible. It is like proposing we get rid of centralized control for airplanes and have each component self govern. It simply will not work.

This is a good analogy, thank you. Like roads. We pay taxes to use them, yet there are regulations about how to operate and even who is allowed to use them. But what if we just left it up to special forces to decide who and what was allowed on the roads? This is my concern from the article in OP.

 

[wing2000]

Whose designing the AI then?
I am a firm believer in, "you make time for what is important to you". Thus if discerning the truth is important to you, you will spend the time.
The alternative would be to just put blind trust in "experts"

Nobody regulating the internet?

The United States Special Operations Command has no interest in regulating the internet. Do you understand their mission and objective for employing AI?

 

[The Hour IS AT HAND]

The United States Special Operations Command has no interest in regulating the internet. Do you understand their mission and objective for employing AI?

From the article
"The company’s Argus anomaly detection AI software analyzes social media data, accurately capturing “emerging narratives” and generating intelligence reports for military forces to speedily neutralize disinformation threats."

Seems to me like the objective is to control the "narrative".

 

[durangodawood]

How is it done now.

For a free speech example, look at this website we're on right now. Its highly regulated by private owners - individuals or a corporation, I dont know. If they took an unregulated approach this place would turn intolerable in no time at all. The owners know this.

 

[Wings like Eagles]

The United States Special Operations Command has no interest in regulating the internet. Do you understand their mission and objective for employing AI?

Control ..... do you mean Bidens USSOC

 

[Wings like Eagles]

For a free speech example, look at this website we're on right now. Its highly regulated by private owners - individuals or a corporation, I dont know. If they took an unregulated approach this place would turn intolerable in no time at all. The owners know this.

Who owns the internet?

 

[durangodawood]

....But there is a difference between websites and the internet, right?
....

Yes, but since we're talking about free speech issues, who controls individual websites is actually more important than engineers setting protocols "under the hood", as it were, for basic operability.

I can picture a China style danger tho, where, if I understand, the govt scrapes all internet communication and removes "bad" stuff. I dont think thats what on the table in this proposal tho.

 

[wing2000]

Control ..... do you mean Bidens USSOC

IOW, you don't know.

 

[The Hour IS AT HAND]

Yes, but since we're talking about free speech issues, who controls individual websites is actually more important than engineers setting protocols "under the hood" as it were for basic operability.

Alright, lets say I wanted to make a website about something highly controversial. Yet was unable, because the code "under the hood" prevented me from creating it in the first place?

 

[Wings like Eagles]

IOW, you don't know.

Maybe like how China and some other countries control their internet access?

And you are good with this?

 

[durangodawood]

Who owns the internet?

No one, strictly speaking.

But all the specific venues you use to communicate are owned by private parties (Facebook, Reddit, Christian Forums, etc) - except for govt run websites used to access govt.

 

[durangodawood]

Alright, lets say I wanted to make a website about something highly controversial. Yet was unable, because the code "under the hood" prevented me from creating it in the first place?

Well then we'd have prior restraint censorship which would be illegal (and imo wrong) - with a few sensible exceptions like outright personal harassment, spilling military secrets, the very wrong kind of "porn", etc.

Oh look I was just censored myself! I did not write "inappropriate content".

 

[Belk]

Not saying I have the answers for this, just a "third" option. But there is a difference between websites and the internet, right?

This is a good analogy, thank you. Like roads. We pay taxes to use them, yet there are regulations about how to operate and even who is allowed to use them. But what if we just left it up to special forces to decide who and what was allowed on the roads? This is my concern from the article in OP.

They are not making a determination of what is allowed. They are labeling things as disinformation that are not true. ( I believe. I've not really read the article)