The Future of AI is Open [Advertiser content from IBM] 

Love your content! Followed you on bilibili too, though you stopped uploading...

I didn't even notice!

thank you captain, I thought it's informative.

it's Scott! yep, should've been its own frame.

They should put it on the thumbnail too.

It literally says "Advertiser Content from IBM" in the top right corner, how more honest can Vox be??

@@OculusUniversale I would have liked to see them put "ad" in the thumbnail or video title so people know before they click.

@Adamjohnhall Alright that's fair, I didn't think of that

On phones that’s so tiny

Vox has always been trash

hmmm, i wonder why

wait until you see the top right of the video

It is.

Mention in the desrcription too.

@@emadadnan000 it is in the description

websearch for 'sponsorblock'

CalebCity makes great ads.

Exactly, it's lame. 😑

especially since it's not just a segment, but the entire video

Would have been a nice ad if they ended with this video is completely made by AI

@@Mohamed-Yakhlef Actually, it would have been worse. 😉🤪

Because if its ad it tells it on the right upper corner of the video. 🤷🏻‍♂️

@@samthesomniator They're taking IBM money now. That's going to influence the tone of their content on the subject. little ad tag or not.

@@chrisrenfroe4243 they choose sponsors they align with in world view I guess. Why not.

money money money money money money

LOL!

Indeed! 🤣🤣🤣

So displaying "Advertiser Content from IBM" at the top right for the duration of the video doesn't count either? 😂

It's in the corner of the entire video too

They did! 🎉

it is in the title if you read it

I noticed that too!

This is a video by IBM. IBM is not ignorant. They know exactly what AI is and what it can and can't do. But the general public doesn't. So they can sell AI as something that it isn't.

@@answer5092 exactly

I agree.

the transition of the dots to the background of the interview was cold

I wouldn't be surprised if this was entirely created by IBM and just given to Vox to upload.

@@XR4turbo no, i can see vox's editing style all over this.

@@XR4turbo nah ibm don't edit like this

What if I told you the only way these models can be trained to their current capabilities is by relying on reinforcement learning workers making $2/hr in Kenya and abroad lol Every part of this technology is built on exploitation

@@fluxophile Exactly this. The working class is being robbed blind but we’re not organized enough to do anything about it

Open AI is no longer open. It's source code and training data are not open to the public.

Technically they have, beginning of thee video, right conner but white font blends into info graphics so well that many have missed it.

Because they are B2B business, you wont see their models on consumer devices.

How do you differentiate between simulation and “real”?

@@utsavmangla8552 For a short answer one major difference i have in mind and obviously i don't pretend to have the truth, though I did do research on the topic (philosophy of technics). (and excuse my grammar i'm not used to talk in English about those topics) TL;DR a cooking robot will never invent a dish when writing, the human interacts with the technical object as anyone does while thinking/working, there's a sort of back and forth between the text and your mind. Anyone who creates a text experiences the fact that the "thought" seems to emerge while writing, from the interaction. in other words it's difficult to conceive a thought "full made in the head" which only needs to be written down (even a birthday card verifies this!) such interactions are definetly possible with computing machines but AI models don't need human interaction per se (the paper does and will never write itself). also the interaction produces unpredictability and statistical automation relies on predictability obviously. eventually a simulation will never be able to modify itself as in producing a result that changes its own rules (just as any human does when cooking, writing, building a house, etc) without human activity a simulation will eventually produce stereotyped, "middle" results (every AI model so far confirms that rule as far as i know) i hope i was clear, there's more to say obviously

The comparison is on how emerging technologies can be used for good purposes they can and have always been used nefarious ones. Point is we shouldn’t let that fact prevent useful innovations. Would come off better if it came from a historian or something and not the VP of a corporation with a vested interest in us trusting the technology though 😅