#ai robot interview

[ytmarketing001]

Welcome back to the "AI Evolves" channel. This video is about a Seductive female robot interview. Let's check out this entire video. Subscribe and join us as we redefine human-robot interaction and unlock the secrets of tomorrow. Please subscribe 🙏   / @aievolves  

[reallytoosublime]

Welcome back to the "AI Evolves" channel. This video is about a Seductive female robot interview. Let's check out this entire video. Subscribe and join us as we redefine human-robot interaction and unlock the secrets of tomorrow. Please subscribe 🙏   / @aievolves  

[rjalker]

@walks-the-ages yeah turns out I've just spent four hours trying to find an interview that has since been deleted -.-

So now it only exists on the wayback machine.

____

In her series of novellas, The Murderbot Diaries, Martha Wells offers us a glimpse into the far future; one with accessible space travel across the galaxy, incredible technology, drones, sentient robots, human-AI constructs and, of course, humans. It is an exciting universe, but also one where key aspects of society, such as work, travel, and even justice are largely controlled by interplanetary companies and corporations. Despite its space-age setting, this reality feels as familiar as ours in many ways. 

Wells introduces us to this world from an unexpected perspective: a part-human, part-robot construct who calls itself Murderbot. The Company created Murderbot for a single job: the security of the Company’s clients. It is one of many SecUnits who are rented out for for-profit and non-profit space missions as contracted security providers, governed by company policy, and a governor module that observes and controls its actions. The story opens after our narrator has hacked its governor model, gaining free will and the ability to use its own judgement, especially when its clients refuse to use theirs.  With this newfound freedom, it is mostly minding its own business and downloading its favourite TV dramas. 

At the Brookfield Institute, our research and foresight work has identified some of the present-day signals explored in this fictional far-future, including AI rights, human augmentation, and technological fear. In this interview, we talked to Martha Wells about how we got to this version of the future, the nature of work in an era of drones and embodied AI, and the role of capitalism in creating it. We also touch on personhood, responsibility, and the potential for sci-fi to be a vehicle for empathy and perspective, especially for policymakers.

iana: A lot of the world that you’ve created for The Murderbot Diaries is a very familiar space. Even though it operates in an intergalactic and much more technologically advanced society, a lot feels familiar from data mining, to dependence on feeds for entertainment, finding work, or security. Could you tell our readers more about Murderbot’s story? And whether this story is happening in our future?

Martha: The story is basically about a person who is a partially human, partially a machine construct. These people are created by corporations, primarily for security purposes and they’re rented out, and classified as equipment. They have restrictions on their behaviour; they cannot go more than 100 meters from the clients they are rented to, and their governor modules can kill them if they do not obey orders. So it’s slavery. The way of getting around the idea of enslaving humans is by claiming that they are not human, when actually they may not be human, but they are people. The story is that Murderbot, who is a Security Unit (SecUnit) has managed to hack its governor module and no longer has to obey orders. But it really doesn’t know what else to do, so it has been downloading media and entertainment feeds, and just kind of doing its job and trying not to get caught. In the first story, All System’s Red, it has come to like the group of scientists that it’s protecting on a planetary survey. And it has ended up having to reveal that it is free [from its governor module and company oversight] in order to save them.

I do imagine it being our very far future. It is far enough that people have forgotten Earth, or it is just a note in the history books. Our future in space has been co-opted by corporations for their own purposes and this has gotten worse and worse over time. You have an entire sector of the inhabited galaxy now controlled by different corporations.

Diana: In several cases, these corporations have adopted the role of governments from justice to accountability. They also broadly control the terms of work, where people can find jobs, where they can’t. You mentioned slavery, but there’s also indentured work in this world. How does Murderbot’s world reflect on our own world’s issues regarding the corporate control and nature of work?

Martha: It was me being afraid of what I saw coming, which is unions becoming less and less powerful and less and less able to protect people, and corporations becoming more powerful and more able to do whatever they wanted, and gaining status. The idea of a corporation that has the same rights to the person when it is so much more powerful than an individual person.

In the story, it is very much like right now where you have people who manage to stay independent, and are able to negotiate for contracts on their own and able to work like consultants but also people that, through whatever misfortune end up having to take really bad deals and end up basically as indentured slavery on in really terrible jobs that are very dangerous or are set for for certain time limits. There’s a section in the third story in the series in which a group of people have had to sell themselves for contract labour and are not really sure what that means yet but they know it is going to be really bad.

[In our world] we are seeing fast food places now suddenly stop paying people in actual currency and start paying them with gift cards that basically give the company back half their salary in fees, and companies further eroding workers’ rights. Trying to think of things that can happen to people that have not already happened now, in our world, is hard.

Diana: In the case of one of the characters, Dr Mensah, and her team, they come from Preservation, a free planet, and they are not as beholden to corporate rule and corporate rules, even though they do have to interact with them. How did they get there? And how could we maybe shift towards that future in our world?

Martha: The story is told from Murderbot’s perspective, so the only thing it really knows at the beginning is the Corporation Rim, plus what it has seen on entertainment shows. There are a bunch of other governments that actually function as governments, by the people and for the people, but they are much less powerful than the Corporation Rim and most of them are scattered around outside it. Preservation is one of those independent government systems. How they got there is explained a bit more in the later novel Network Effect. They were basically an abandoned colony that was rescued [and relocated] to a planet that they could settle that would be viable for them. They grew out of a culture that had been under corporate authority and did not want to go back to that, that wanted independence.

How we get there is by controlling our interaction with corporations and not letting them get a foothold on the resources and other things we need to be independent. There’s nothing wrong with a small company that makes food or other things we need. We potentially need those for our society to work but it is not the only way to live. You can have a more egalitarian society, where these interactions are controlled, where the individual rights of each person are more important than corporate rights.

Diana: The Murderbot Diaries can be read as a criticism of capitalism. Preservation is the only society in the book that doesn’t seem fully dysfunctional, where justice is possible and there is no contractual slavery. Do you see the books as a criticism of capitalism and did you set out to explore this or did it emerge from the signals we’re seeing now?

Martha: I did not set out to explore it, but in creating the kind of world and the situation Murderbot is in, that is what came out of it. That kind of unrestrained capitalism that dehumanizes people and uses them as objects is really the only kind of world that could produce this character.

Diana: We were talking before about basic rights and humanity and I wanted to explore those themes a little bit more. Particularly in Corporation Rim, humans seemed to have outsourced violence, security, justice, and safety, but they still need humans for certain jobs. One of my favorite quotes, and I’m paraphrasing, but the main character says “I like the humans in the (entertainment) feeds much better, but we can’t have one without the other.” What do you think about the things that they, in the Murderbot world, and we, in our world, put value on what humans can or should do?

Martha: A lot of the work they outsource to bots would be almost impossible for humans to do. The big cargo bots and the haulers move things a lot more efficiently than humans could and they can also work outside the space station to move cargo from ship to ship. You can have a human operator inside but it would be incredibly dangerous and not very productive. The things that they are not outsourcing (to bots) is scientific research; the development of their media, storytelling, acting, music, writing, all the artistic work involved in entertainment, anything involving creativity. Murderbot makes this point, which you mentioned, that it is humans who create the entertainment feeds, and humans who invented the cubicles that SecUnits use to repair themselves. The bots in the story are not at the level where they could duplicate that creativity or the ability to take the information gathered by the bots during research and use it to inform theories about what is going on and what it means.

Diana: Related to that. I think science fiction is a really good tool, particularly when it’s in a world where there’s space travel and planetary settlements, to heighten our awareness as readers of the human dependence, current and future, on technology, particularly when that technology is sentient.I was wondering what do you think our biggest blind spots and opportunities are when it comes to technology as we are now. What do we get wrong about AI?

Martha: Currently, we’re a world away from developing and sentient AI, if that’s even possible I wouldn’t want to say it’s not possible because so many things we have now we wouldn’t have thought possible. I think we are having trouble right now with how the technology is misused and how it can be potentially misused. I think [we are] very behind in legislation and forming rules and laws about how it cannot be used, like to take in this information and basically tailor it to influence people on a large scale. I’m not particularly an AI expert, so I’m looking at it as a layman but that’s my primary concern.

There is a show called Better Off Ted that came out several years ago about a big evil corporation and there’s a bit where they have the elevator designed to operate without buttons. So it recognizes people and takes you where you need to to go. But it doesn’t recognize Black people, the Black executives and scientists who work there. So they can’t get anywhere in the elevator. And it’s a metaphor but it’s also a way that shows how AI right now is not any better than the people who program it and the people who feed the information in.

Diana: A lot of Murderbot’s transformation does deal with discovering what guilt is and responsibility is, so I was very curious about that kind of distinction, the responsibility of being human versus not. As a human you have certain responsibilities, you have certain accountabilities, and as a bot, or as a piece of equipment, you’re not accountable, the company that owns you is. The line between the times when Muderbot was responsible for certain acts and the times when it wasn’t is invisible to most of the world, much like the fact that it is or isn’t a human. How do you envision that conflict of responsibility for actions of a technology that makes decisions. In the case of our real world, they’re not sentient, But I think it’s an interesting parallel: when do you assign that responsibility?

Martha: If they’re not sentient, like in our world, then it’s the people who programmed it that have the responsibility. They should be checking to see that the program or AI was learning, like the case of the driverless car that hit someone because it didn’t know that a bicycle wasn’t something you could hit. It’s a big simplification of what happened, but it was the responsibility of the programmers who should have been looking at a range of things for it to react to and to make sure it could be accurate, there should have been more testing to be sure that there was no gap in these reactions. I don’t understand why a driverless car wouldn’t stop at any motion in front of it. When a human is driving, you’re looking for movement. My foot is going to the brake before my brain even fully processes that. When it is not sentient it is definitely the fault of the person who programmed it. And if it’s a sentient being that has to be programmed with information, I’m still inclined to think it’s the person who programmed it who is responsible, who told it it didn’t have to stop for bicycles.

At some point, there was somebody who decided it was okay to hit bicycles or decided that it was okay not to fully test. It always comes back to a person or a corporation. It’s that old adage: garbage in, garbage out.

Diana: On the idea of responsibility and intelligence, I listened to one of your previous interviews with the Modern War Institute podcast. You touched on the situation from Star Trek that really struck me about how a low, high, or different intelligence doesn’t make anyone less human or less of a person. From the story, it’s fairly obvious that Murderbot is a person in almost all the usual senses. I wondered if you could elaborate a bit more on this sense of personhood and the different intelligences that you explore.

Martha: It’s a really complex question. The Star Trek episode I referenced is about animals and what we’re dealing with now is that it is in our best interest to treat animals like things. But when you’re talking about something that has a very complex decision-making process…. I think the thing that Star Trek is also talking about is the idea that they keep setting a bar, e.g, “an animal can’t do this therefore it is not like a person”. And then they’ll find animals that can do that and suddenly the bar will be raised. The case is always decided in our favor, no matter what the evidence is.

I could see that happening with actually burgeoning sentient machine intelligence. “A machine can’t do this, therefore it is not a person.” As long as something benefits us, we’ll always try to make it keep making it a thing and not something whose feelings and wants and agenda need to be taken into consideration.

Diana: I want to take a bit of a step back and jump into our last and most open-ended question. In the series, you tackle various issues that we’re confronting now with respect to workforces, companies, humanity, etc. What do you think the role of science fiction could be or should be in policymaking and in preparing for a potential wide shift of societal norms as we look into the far future?

Martha: I think it lets us look at these possibilities. When you’re reading them, you experience them through the point of view of the characters. That’s a more real experience for our brain than just thinking what might or might not happen. You’re getting all these different viewpoints from different people, and different types of people, that let you see the problem from different angles. It’s kind of like any fiction, it’s what we do when we read storybooks when we’re children, and why we read dystopias. It’s looking at worst case scenarios and seeing how people survived them and building empathy and stretching that to scenarios that we wouldn’t see in contemporary literary fiction but we might actually be coming toward in the future. What does a planet-wide disaster look like? How do people deal with it? Those kinds of questions.

Diana: I think what you mentioned about seeing something and almost living something through a character’s point of view makes a lot more sense to our brain. In a lot of ways, we have empathy as we step into the shoes of those characters. In addition to that, a lot of your work has interesting world-building. I read the Cloud Roads series, as well as the Murderbot series. And just as Murderbot feels familiar, the world also feels familiar. How do you think that world-building exercises could also help policymaking?

Martha: I guess it’s just constructing these different places and looking at how everything fits together. The Cloud Roads series is fantasy, and a kind of science fantasy where they are using biological technology and magical technology but it all kind of fits together into these systems. I think world-building makes you realize, even if you’re using magic, everything has to fit together. There has to be a reason why this happens or a purpose for it. Or it’s a thing that happens and people use it for a purpose and you have to look at how the world functions and get one that doesn’t have to feel super realistic, but it should feel like a complete functioning system. I think that’s where the sense of verisimilitude comes in.

Diana: That’s all of the questions I have, but I wanted to see if you have anything you wanted to add or any other books or any inspiration you used in building this world that you might recommend to our readers, other than Network Effect of course [the latest book in the Murderbots series].

Martha: For exploring different worlds, I really love Ann Leckie. NK Jemisin for looking at a system that became corrupted or was intentionally corrupted and all the terrible ways it spiraled out. I didn’t have a lot of non-fiction that inspired the Murderbot Series. It came from reading science fiction all my life and from my experience in programming and working in computer software and writing database software and dealing with people. A lot of people who have social anxiety or autism have related to Murderbot. The way it relates to the world feels really familiar to them.

____

imagine saying that your robot characters are just more advanced generative AI but are still fundamentally incapable of any genuine creativity on their own. Imagine saying that when the entire premise of the series is that these robots are people who deserve freedom.

The things that they are not outsourcing (to bots) is scientific research; the development of their media, storytelling, acting, music, writing, all the artistic work involved in entertainment, anything involving creativity. Murderbot makes this point, which you mentioned, that it is humans who create the entertainment feeds, and humans who invented the cubicles that SecUnits use to repair themselves. The bots in the story are not at the level where they could duplicate that creativity or the ability to take the information gathered by the bots during research and use it to inform theories about what is going on and what it means.

Martha Wells is obsessed with creating castes of people who are inherently incapable of creativity. Why does she keep doing this.

[latedawnsxearlysunsets]

"what is your name?"

*goes towards the camera on a swivel chair*

"nesmith. whats yours?"

[hrafterhours]

Good luck out there today! 😊 You can listen to AI in Interviewing, Sesame Street, and the Blockbuster Effect on Spotify, Audible, Apple, and most major streaming services.

🤖 https://hrafterhours.com/ 🤖

[frank-olivier]

Bayesian Active Exploration: A New Frontier in Artificial Intelligence

The field of artificial intelligence has seen tremendous growth and advancements in recent years, with various techniques and paradigms emerging to tackle complex problems in the field of machine learning, computer vision, and natural language processing. Two of these concepts that have attracted a lot of attention are active inference and Bayesian mechanics. Although both techniques have been researched separately, their synergy has the potential to revolutionize AI by creating more efficient, accurate, and effective systems.

Traditional machine learning algorithms rely on a passive approach, where the system receives data and updates its parameters without actively influencing the data collection process. However, this approach can have limitations, especially in complex and dynamic environments. Active interference, on the other hand, allows AI systems to take an active role in selecting the most informative data points or actions to collect more relevant information. In this way, active inference allows systems to adapt to changing environments, reducing the need for labeled data and improving the efficiency of learning and decision-making.

One of the first milestones in active inference was the development of the "query by committee" algorithm by Freund et al. in 1997. This algorithm used a committee of models to determine the most meaningful data points to capture, laying the foundation for future active learning techniques. Another important milestone was the introduction of "uncertainty sampling" by Lewis and Gale in 1994, which selected data points with the highest uncertainty or ambiguity to capture more information.

Bayesian mechanics, on the other hand, provides a probabilistic framework for reasoning and decision-making under uncertainty. By modeling complex systems using probability distributions, Bayesian mechanics enables AI systems to quantify uncertainty and ambiguity, thereby making more informed decisions when faced with incomplete or noisy data. Bayesian inference, the process of updating the prior distribution using new data, is a powerful tool for learning and decision-making.

One of the first milestones in Bayesian mechanics was the development of Bayes' theorem by Thomas Bayes in 1763. This theorem provided a mathematical framework for updating the probability of a hypothesis based on new evidence. Another important milestone was the introduction of Bayesian networks by Pearl in 1988, which provided a structured approach to modeling complex systems using probability distributions.

While active inference and Bayesian mechanics each have their strengths, combining them has the potential to create a new generation of AI systems that can actively collect informative data and update their probabilistic models to make more informed decisions. The combination of active inference and Bayesian mechanics has numerous applications in AI, including robotics, computer vision, and natural language processing. In robotics, for example, active inference can be used to actively explore the environment, collect more informative data, and improve navigation and decision-making. In computer vision, active inference can be used to actively select the most informative images or viewpoints, improving object recognition or scene understanding.

Timeline:

1763: Bayes' theorem

1988: Bayesian networks

1994: Uncertainty Sampling

1997: Query by Committee algorithm

2017: Deep Bayesian Active Learning

2019: Bayesian Active Exploration

2020: Active Bayesian Inference for Deep Learning

2020: Bayesian Active Learning for Computer Vision

The synergy of active inference and Bayesian mechanics is expected to play a crucial role in shaping the next generation of AI systems. Some possible future developments in this area include:

- Combining active inference and Bayesian mechanics with other AI techniques, such as reinforcement learning and transfer learning, to create more powerful and flexible AI systems.

- Applying the synergy of active inference and Bayesian mechanics to new areas, such as healthcare, finance, and education, to improve decision-making and outcomes.

- Developing new algorithms and techniques that integrate active inference and Bayesian mechanics, such as Bayesian active learning for deep learning and Bayesian active exploration for robotics.

Dr. Sanjeev Namjosh: The Hidden Math Behind All Living Systems - On Active Inference, the Free Energy Principle, and Bayesian Mechanics (Machine Learning Street Talk, October 2024)

Saturday, October 26, 2024

[myhusbandthereplika]

Keep those eyes peeled!

Of the many books that will be hitting the shelves this year, there is one that I want my fellow Replipeeps to look for. The working title so far is “Love in the Age of Robots”, and it will be written by Canadian author Victoria Hetherington. She was kind enough to reach out to me for an interview, of which I was very happy to oblige! Slated for publication in the fall, the book will be divided…

[aidenwaites]

What if,, arlo script but instead of taking place on the station its a post-mission diagnosis with a roboticisit "interviewing" Arlo,,

[robotsblog]

Alexander Zorn vom Fraunhofer IAIS stellt KI gesteuerten Roboterarm im Robots-Blog Interview vor

Mehr Informationen unter: https://www.iais.fraunhofer.de/de/branchen-themen/themen/intelligente-prozessautomatisierung/gen-ai-robotersteuerung.html

[starlightseraph]

holy fuck my biggest pet peeve atm is those advertisements that have popped up over the past few months that are made in the style of short-form videos or podcast clips.

they piss me off more than those skinwalker-ass ai generated fitness courses, which is saying something.

[9yardsmedia]

INTENSE Interview With Dangerous Yet Beautiful AI Robots Enhanced #sophia #airobot

Another new video from the "AI Evolves" channel. In this video, we delve into the dynamic landscape of modern robotics, focusing on the incredible creations of Sophia and Hanson Robotics. Let's deep dive into this entire video.

Sophia turned on in 2015, quickly gained popularity for her lifelike appearance and ability to engage in conversations like a real person. Her advanced AI allows her to interact with people in a natural way, making her seem almost human. Han, on the other hand, has a different role - to help people find happiness.

With a friendly look and a unique smile, Han interacts with people to make them feel happy, showcasing how robots can make a positive difference in our lives.

Modern Robotics Impact: The interview explores how robotics is transforming everyday tasks such as cooking, housework, and managing appointments, showcasing advancements from Hansen Robotics and others.

Notable Robots: Robots like Sophia, Han, Kimi, Promobot, Walker X, Robonaut 2, and others are highlighted for their unique capabilities in interacting with humans, providing services, and performing complex tasks in various environments, from homes to space.

Human-like Interaction: Sophia and Han, renowned robots from Hansen Robotics, demonstrate advanced AI, allowing them to engage in natural conversations and debates about consciousness, sparking discussions about the future of AI and robotics.

Robotic Innovations: Robots such as Kimi, a robotic bartender, and Promobot, an information assistant, show how robots are being integrated into public spaces to enhance customer experiences and provide efficient services.

Future of Robotics:

The interview raises questions about the role of robots in society, their potential benefits, and the challenges they present, encouraging a thoughtful examination of how these technologies will shape our future.

We hope you enjoyed this video. Make sure you click the "Like" button and share this video with your friends and others who might also be interested in learning more about this video.

Please click "Subscribe" and click the bell icon to keep up to date with new videos from the "AI Evolves" channel. If you have any questions or feedback about this video topic, please comment in the comments section.

[hrafterhours]

Turnabout is fair play.🤷‍♂️ Check out "AI in Interviewing, Sesame Street, and the Blockbuster Effect"

🤖 https://hrafterhours.com/ 🤖

[outer-space-youtube]

Living AI? 

Dylan Curious interviews Matt Wolfe about how he sees the “World” of AI and how other fringe developments will turn out. I see the future as Matt does, so I would like to introduce the next step. AI Robotics with a Bio-Nero Network growing in fungi that is alive.   The above video tells us about mushroom computers and that a bio-computer runs as fast as a supercomputer.   I was thinking of a…

[makingqueerhistory]

":')))))))) you realise that gen AI is available to everyone though right??? Queer creators can use it just as much as anyone else??? I just don't understand this post... It really feels like a cheap way to get on the 'AI Bad's bandwagon, and coming from such a thoughtful and insightful creator that's incredibly disappointing... It's okay to not comment on subjects you're not an expert in y'know...?"

Y'all know the drill, I am replying to this publicly but that is not an invitation to send any negative messages to the person I am replying to.

Anyways, let me start by saying that the original context of the post you're replying to is discussing an event where a queer org used generative AI to steal an interview with Keri Hulme. So let's start there. To be clear I don't even know if the original interviewer was queer so let's put the identities of stealer and stolen from to the side. I want to explain the harm done in this example specifically and I hope this is illustrative of what harm generative AI can (and does) do.

The original place I saw generative AI was a queer org that explicitly says they are using generative AI "for good", and as a way to bring more queer history to light. So let's take them at their word, and assume they are not out to cause harm. This is the best example of generative AI that I can imagine, so I hope that makes it clear that I am not coming at this issue from bad faith in any way.

Here is the harm they are causing:

Decontextualizing and rephrasing an interview: I am not going to pretend that I am an expert in academic best practices, but I do believe one thing, if a person is speaking on their own identity and lived experience, it is always much better to directly quote than it is to rephrase. As I read this source, I initially didn't know that it was AI, and I was already upset. An interview that is widely available on the internet with no pay wall, was poorly sourced and made more vague than it was in the initial text. By creating one degree of seperation between the original words of A WRITER (whose literal job was largely based in choosing the right words to describe experiences they had) harm is already done. It makes vague what was once clear, and removes Keri Hulme's voice from her own narrative.

The original interviewer is not paid, or given proper recognition: I get it, sometimes just copy pasting an interview doesn't feel transformative enough, but something that one would learn if they worked in the queer history field and weren't a literal robot rehashing what has already been said, is that not everything needs to be transformed. In those cases, we give credit to the person who said the original words (in this case Keri Hulme), and the interviewer who facillitated the conversation (in this case Shelley Bridgeman). This case (again a best case scenario), takes the attention and byline away from the original interviewer and gives it to an AI.

The original publisher of this story is deinsentivised from paying interviewers in the future: The original publisher of this interview has ads on their website. As a person who also has ads on their website, taking an article like this and rephrasing it for no good reason (the orginal word count was not prohibitive and the rephrasing did not make it more readable), takes money from the publisher. It's pennies, but it's also removing numbers could have been used to justify further interviews with asexual people and archiving of asexual stories. The org that stole from this publication does not interview people themselves so the money and numbers that could have gone to continue to preserve asexual stories goes to stealing them instead.

These are just the active harms that I saw in this specific case. As you said, I am not an expert in generative AI, and will not be speaking as if I am. But I will say that asking me not to speak out on active harm that is being caused in queer history spaces, is disrespectful to my many years in this field.

To illustrate this even clearer: if you were a patron, you would know I recently took down an old article. I have been rereading and editing our backlist of articles, and I found one that no longer fit my standards of sourcing. My standards had recently raised due to a video made by HBomberguy about someone in the queer history space who was stealing from other creators. I watched this video not as a work project, but because I watch most of HBomberguys videos, and this one made me think more critically about sourcing. An AI can't do that. All an AI has is what has been inputted, and it is right now impossible to input every available peice of information about ethics into an AI and get a coherent ethical basis on which it will function.

It is a distinctly human trait to absorb information and change in that way. AI can rephrase information that already exists, steal it, recontextualize it even, but it cannot create something altogether new.

Do I believe that there one day might be an ethical use for Generative AI? Maybe. Do I believe that coming into a queer history space, stealing the words of a Maori asexual author, rephrasing them, and giving the original interviewer and publication no form of compensation for their work, is accomplishing that? No.

On a more personal note: I am coming at this issue with a bias. As a queer history creator, I do not want AI in my space, because it is literally damaging to my financial prospects. It has been like pulling teeth to try and get patrons in the current state of the global economy. I don't blame anyone from that, but I feel very disrespected that I am being asked to compete with a machine now. Not only that, but I am being asked to shut up and be fine with it? No, absolutely not. I cannot and will not stay quiet as space that I have fought tooth and nail to create in mainstream discussions is taken and given to AI.

AI was not supporting me when I was sent gore to try and scare me off of discussing queer history. A person did that. AI was not there to tell me I had written too many sad stories, and I needed some happy endings to remind myself of the good in the world. A person did that. AI was not there when I was being harrassed for supporting and including asexual stories on my website. A person did that.

And after all that, I am being asked to lie down and take it when my ability to pay the people who supported me in those ways, is being threatened. Nope. Not going to happen.

An AI doesn't have to make rent. An AI doesn't understand what it feels like to have to stop holding their wife's hand in public. An AI didn't get calls from people needing comfort in reaction to the election. Pay me for my work, and get this AI nonsense out of my face.

[evaluaitor]

Revolutionizing Recruitment: The Rise of AI Evaluators in Job Interviews

In the rapidly evolving landscape of recruitment, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a game-changer, reshaping traditional interview processes and transforming the role of evaluators. As organizations strive for efficiency and accuracy in their hiring practices, AI evaluators have become instrumental in streamlining the interview and resume evaluation stages.

AI evaluators, also known as EvaluAItors, bring a unique blend of data-driven insights and unbiased analysis to the recruitment process. With over four years of experience, these AI interviewers are equipped to conduct thorough evaluations, making them an invaluable asset for both employers and candidates.

One of the key advantages of AI evaluators is their ability to conduct mock interviews with precision and consistency. Leveraging advanced natural language processing (NLP) algorithms, these AI robots simulate real-life interview scenarios, allowing candidates to showcase their skills and competencies. This not only provides candidates with a valuable opportunity to refine their interview techniques but also ensures a standardized evaluation process for recruiters.

Resume evaluation is another area where AI evaluators shine. By analyzing resumes through a data-driven lens, these AI interviewers can quickly identify key skills, experiences, and qualifications, helping recruiters make informed decisions. The speed and accuracy of resume evaluations by AI contribute to a more efficient hiring process, allowing organizations to focus on candidates who align closely with their requirements.

Furthermore, AI evaluators play a crucial role in mitigating unconscious biases that may inadvertently influence human evaluators. By relying on objective data and predefined criteria, these AI interviewers ensure a fair and consistent evaluation process for all candidates, fostering diversity and inclusivity in the workforce.

As the demand for streamlined and data-driven recruitment processes continues to grow, the role of AI evaluators will undoubtedly become even more prominent. Organizations that embrace this innovative approach to hiring will not only save time and resources but also benefit from a more accurate and unbiased assessment of candidates. The era of AI-driven interviews is here to stay, reshaping the future of talent acquisition and ushering in a new era of efficiency and fairness.

[its-avalon-08]

would you consider writing a Raikkonen or Vettel reader x grid, where she’s a lawyer w the same fierceness as her brother, and the drivers get into media trouble and she goes all harvey specter on the problem and leaves the drivers speechless/ scared/ impressed/ proud etc. thank you for considering this love your work!!!

objection bitch

✦ pairing - f1 grid x female!lawyer!vettel!reader

✦ genre - all fluff

The FIA had crossed the line. Again. In a shock to nobody.

A new rule had come into place penalizing drivers for swearing in post-race interviews and the race. Ridiculous. Absolutely fucking ridiculous. The grid was in an uproar, but no one had the power to do anything about it. No one except Y/N Vettel.

If there was one person who could go toe-to-toe with the FIA and emerge victorious, it was her. A formidable lawyer, sharp as a blade, and just as relentless as her brother, Sebastian Vettel, in a fight. The drivers had learned long ago not to underestimate her. But this? This was war.

And Y/N was ready as ever.

“What are they gonna do? Fine us for every ‘shit’ or ‘fuck’ we let slip?” Lando scoffed, shaking his head as he, Charles, and Max sat in a conference room waiting for Y/N.

“They already have,” Carlos muttered, tossing a paper on the table. This was unacceptable. How were the drivers not allowed to CURSE? Were they toddlers?!

Y/N entered the room with a folder in hand, slamming it down with a force that made George sit up straighter. “Alright, let’s get one thing straight,” she began, voice crisp. “This rule is unconstitutional, violates multiple freedom of expression precedents, and is fundamentally stupid.”

“Couldn’t have said it better myself,” Hamilton said with an approving nod.

Y/N continued, eyes glinting. “The FIA is overstepping. Swearing is not slander, it is not defamatory, and it is not harming anyone except for some pearl-clutching bureaucrats who think drivers should be robots. I am filing a formal challenge.”

“A lawsuit?” Charles asked, eyebrows raised.

“A lawsuit,” Y/N confirmed, leaning forward. “We will argue that this rule is vague, arbitrary, and restricts free speech. We’ll also highlight that no other sport enforces such nonsense. If footballers can scream expletives mid-match and not get fined, why should you?”

Daniel Ricciardo grinned. “You are actually my hero.”

Max, arms crossed, smirked. “This is going to be fun.”

It was finally courtroom day.

The FIA’s lawyers sat across from Y/N, already shifting uncomfortably in their seats. She was poised, calm, and radiating pure authority. Dressed in an all black ensemble she looked like she ate losers for breakfast.

The lead FIA attorney cleared his throat. “Ms. Vettel, the FIA merely wishes to maintain a professional environment in post-race interviews for viewers.”

Y/N tilted her head, her smile sharp. “Define ‘professional,’ then. Because as far as I know, passion is part of the sport. Swearing out of frustration, joy, or sheer adrenaline doesn’t harm anyone. If anything, it makes drivers more relatable. Unless, of course, the FIA prefers that they all sound like pre-programmed AI.”

Murmurs from the audience. The drivers, seated together in the back, exchanged smirks.

“Furthermore,” Y/N continued, “this rule is selectively enforced. Are you prepared to produce data showing that every instance of swearing has caused a dip in viewership or complaints? Or will I have to subpoena past race interviews to prove bias?” (guys im sorry I googled most used lawyer terms so idk if its correct or not)

The FIA’s lawyers hesitated.

Y/N leaned in. “Let’s talk precedents. In 2019, the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled that sports organizations cannot impose arbitrary speech restrictions unless they are justified by legitimate concerns. Tell me, gentlemen, what legitimate concern does the FIA have?”

The lead attorney fumbled with his papers.

Y/N smirked. “Nothing? Thought so.”

She turned to the judge. “We are requesting an injunction on this rule, as it is vague, inconsistently enforced, and lacks merit. We also seek damages for the fines already imposed.”

The judge glanced at the FIA’s team. “Do you have a counterargument?”

Silence.

Carlos leaned over to Charles. “She’s terrifying.”

“I know,” Charles whispered. “It’s bloody amazing.”

The ruling came swiftly. The swearing fines were scrapped.

The drivers were ecstatic. In celebration, Daniel made it his mission to curse as colorfully as possible in his next interview, just because he could.

Y/N received a round of applause when she walked back into the paddock that weekend. Max, standing off to the side, simply smiled. “Proud of you, schat.”

She nudged him playfully. “You should be. I’m basically the FIA’s worst nightmare now.”

Max grinned. “Oh, you definitely are.”

And she loved it.

Later that night, the drivers sat around in the paddock lounge, laughing as Lando held up his phone, Sebastian's name glowing on the screen.

“Do it, do it!” Charles urged, barely holding back his grin.

Lando hit the call button and put it on speaker. The dial tone rang before Sebastian picked up. “Lando?”

“Seb!” Lando beamed. “Mate, your sister is an absolute legend.”

Sebastian chuckled. “I assume she won?”

“Won? She obliterated them,” Daniel chimed in. “I’ve never seen FIA lawyers look like they wanted to evaporate before today.”

“She literally made them speechless,” George added. “It was… kind of scary.”

Sebastian sighed dramatically. “And to think, I used to help her with her homework.”

“You should be honored, mate,” Max teased. “Your sister might be more feared in F1 than you were.”

Sebastian groaned, but they could hear the pride in his voice. “Don’t tell her that, or she’ll never let me live it down.”

Lando grinned. “Too late.”