#automate data

[lorenzonuti]

Whispering secret data.

[bixels]

As cameras becomes more normalized (Sarah Bernhardt encouraging it, grifters on the rise, young artists using it), I wanna express how I will never turn to it because it fundamentally bores me to my core. There is no reason for me to want to use cameras because I will never want to give up my autonomy in creating art. I never want to become reliant on an inhuman object for expression, least of all if that object is created and controlled by manufacturing companies. I paint not because I want a painting but because I love the process of painting. So even in a future where everyone’s accepted it, I’m never gonna sway on this.

if i have to explain to you that using a camera to take a picture is not the same as using generative ai to generate an image then you are a fucking moron.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The surprising truth about data-driven dictatorships

Here’s the “dictator’s dilemma”: they want to block their country’s frustrated elites from mobilizing against them, so they censor public communications; but they also want to know what their people truly believe, so they can head off simmering resentments before they boil over into regime-toppling revolutions.

These two strategies are in tension: the more you censor, the less you know about the true feelings of your citizens and the easier it will be to miss serious problems until they spill over into the streets (think: the fall of the Berlin Wall or Tunisia before the Arab Spring). Dictators try to square this circle with things like private opinion polling or petition systems, but these capture a small slice of the potentially destabiziling moods circulating in the body politic.

Enter AI: back in 2018, Yuval Harari proposed that AI would supercharge dictatorships by mining and summarizing the public mood — as captured on social media — allowing dictators to tack into serious discontent and diffuse it before it erupted into unequenchable wildfire:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/yuval-noah-harari-technology-tyranny/568330/

Harari wrote that “the desire to concentrate all information and power in one place may become [dictators] decisive advantage in the 21st century.” But other political scientists sharply disagreed. Last year, Henry Farrell, Jeremy Wallace and Abraham Newman published a thoroughgoing rebuttal to Harari in Foreign Affairs:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/spirals-delusion-artificial-intelligence-decision-making

They argued that — like everyone who gets excited about AI, only to have their hopes dashed — dictators seeking to use AI to understand the public mood would run into serious training data bias problems. After all, people living under dictatorships know that spouting off about their discontent and desire for change is a risky business, so they will self-censor on social media. That’s true even if a person isn’t afraid of retaliation: if you know that using certain words or phrases in a post will get it autoblocked by a censorbot, what’s the point of trying to use those words?

The phrase “Garbage In, Garbage Out” dates back to 1957. That’s how long we’ve known that a computer that operates on bad data will barf up bad conclusions. But this is a very inconvenient truth for AI weirdos: having given up on manually assembling training data based on careful human judgment with multiple review steps, the AI industry “pivoted” to mass ingestion of scraped data from the whole internet.

But adding more unreliable data to an unreliable dataset doesn’t improve its reliability. GIGO is the iron law of computing, and you can’t repeal it by shoveling more garbage into the top of the training funnel:

https://memex.craphound.com/2018/05/29/garbage-in-garbage-out-machine-learning-has-not-repealed-the-iron-law-of-computer-science/

When it comes to “AI” that’s used for decision support — that is, when an algorithm tells humans what to do and they do it — then you get something worse than Garbage In, Garbage Out — you get Garbage In, Garbage Out, Garbage Back In Again. That’s when the AI spits out something wrong, and then another AI sucks up that wrong conclusion and uses it to generate more conclusions.

To see this in action, consider the deeply flawed predictive policing systems that cities around the world rely on. These systems suck up crime data from the cops, then predict where crime is going to be, and send cops to those “hotspots” to do things like throw Black kids up against a wall and make them turn out their pockets, or pull over drivers and search their cars after pretending to have smelled cannabis.

The problem here is that “crime the police detected” isn’t the same as “crime.” You only find crime where you look for it. For example, there are far more incidents of domestic abuse reported in apartment buildings than in fully detached homes. That’s not because apartment dwellers are more likely to be wife-beaters: it’s because domestic abuse is most often reported by a neighbor who hears it through the walls.

So if your cops practice racially biased policing (I know, this is hard to imagine, but stay with me /s), then the crime they detect will already be a function of bias. If you only ever throw Black kids up against a wall and turn out their pockets, then every knife and dime-bag you find in someone’s pockets will come from some Black kid the cops decided to harass.

That’s life without AI. But now let’s throw in predictive policing: feed your “knives found in pockets” data to an algorithm and ask it to predict where there are more knives in pockets, and it will send you back to that Black neighborhood and tell you do throw even more Black kids up against a wall and search their pockets. The more you do this, the more knives you’ll find, and the more you’ll go back and do it again.

This is what Patrick Ball from the Human Rights Data Analysis Group calls “empiricism washing”: take a biased procedure and feed it to an algorithm, and then you get to go and do more biased procedures, and whenever anyone accuses you of bias, you can insist that you’re just following an empirical conclusion of a neutral algorithm, because “math can’t be racist.”

HRDAG has done excellent work on this, finding a natural experiment that makes the problem of GIGOGBI crystal clear. The National Survey On Drug Use and Health produces the gold standard snapshot of drug use in America. Kristian Lum and William Isaac took Oakland’s drug arrest data from 2010 and asked Predpol, a leading predictive policing product, to predict where Oakland’s 2011 drug use would take place.

[Image ID: (a) Number of drug arrests made by Oakland police department, 2010. (1) West Oakland, (2) International Boulevard. (b) Estimated number of drug users, based on 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health]

Then, they compared those predictions to the outcomes of the 2011 survey, which shows where actual drug use took place. The two maps couldn’t be more different:

https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2016.00960.x

Predpol told cops to go and look for drug use in a predominantly Black, working class neighborhood. Meanwhile the NSDUH survey showed the actual drug use took place all over Oakland, with a higher concentration in the Berkeley-neighboring student neighborhood.

What’s even more vivid is what happens when you simulate running Predpol on the new arrest data that would be generated by cops following its recommendations. If the cops went to that Black neighborhood and found more drugs there and told Predpol about it, the recommendation gets stronger and more confident.

In other words, GIGOGBI is a system for concentrating bias. Even trace amounts of bias in the original training data get refined and magnified when they are output though a decision support system that directs humans to go an act on that output. Algorithms are to bias what centrifuges are to radioactive ore: a way to turn minute amounts of bias into pluripotent, indestructible toxic waste.

There’s a great name for an AI that’s trained on an AI’s output, courtesy of Jathan Sadowski: “Habsburg AI.”

And that brings me back to the Dictator’s Dilemma. If your citizens are self-censoring in order to avoid retaliation or algorithmic shadowbanning, then the AI you train on their posts in order to find out what they’re really thinking will steer you in the opposite direction, so you make bad policies that make people angrier and destabilize things more.

Or at least, that was Farrell(et al)’s theory. And for many years, that’s where the debate over AI and dictatorship has stalled: theory vs theory. But now, there’s some empirical data on this, thanks to the “The Digital Dictator’s Dilemma,” a new paper from UCSD PhD candidate Eddie Yang:

https://www.eddieyang.net/research/DDD.pdf

Yang figured out a way to test these dueling hypotheses. He got 10 million Chinese social media posts from the start of the pandemic, before companies like Weibo were required to censor certain pandemic-related posts as politically sensitive. Yang treats these posts as a robust snapshot of public opinion: because there was no censorship of pandemic-related chatter, Chinese users were free to post anything they wanted without having to self-censor for fear of retaliation or deletion.

Next, Yang acquired the censorship model used by a real Chinese social media company to decide which posts should be blocked. Using this, he was able to determine which of the posts in the original set would be censored today in China.

That means that Yang knows that the “real” sentiment in the Chinese social media snapshot is, and what Chinese authorities would believe it to be if Chinese users were self-censoring all the posts that would be flagged by censorware today.

From here, Yang was able to play with the knobs, and determine how “preference-falsification” (when users lie about their feelings) and self-censorship would give a dictatorship a misleading view of public sentiment. What he finds is that the more repressive a regime is — the more people are incentivized to falsify or censor their views — the worse the system gets at uncovering the true public mood.

What’s more, adding additional (bad) data to the system doesn’t fix this “missing data” problem. GIGO remains an iron law of computing in this context, too.

But it gets better (or worse, I guess): Yang models a “crisis” scenario in which users stop self-censoring and start articulating their true views (because they’ve run out of fucks to give). This is the most dangerous moment for a dictator, and depending on the dictatorship handles it, they either get another decade or rule, or they wake up with guillotines on their lawns.

But “crisis” is where AI performs the worst. Trained on the “status quo” data where users are continuously self-censoring and preference-falsifying, AI has no clue how to handle the unvarnished truth. Both its recommendations about what to censor and its summaries of public sentiment are the least accurate when crisis erupts.

But here’s an interesting wrinkle: Yang scraped a bunch of Chinese users’ posts from Twitter — which the Chinese government doesn’t get to censor (yet) or spy on (yet) — and fed them to the model. He hypothesized that when Chinese users post to American social media, they don’t self-censor or preference-falsify, so this data should help the model improve its accuracy.

He was right — the model got significantly better once it ingested data from Twitter than when it was working solely from Weibo posts. And Yang notes that dictatorships all over the world are widely understood to be scraping western/northern social media.

But even though Twitter data improved the model’s accuracy, it was still wildly inaccurate, compared to the same model trained on a full set of un-self-censored, un-falsified data. GIGO is not an option, it’s the law (of computing).

Writing about the study on Crooked Timber, Farrell notes that as the world fills up with “garbage and noise” (he invokes Philip K Dick’s delighted coinage “gubbish”), “approximately correct knowledge becomes the scarce and valuable resource.”

https://crookedtimber.org/2023/07/25/51610/

This “probably approximately correct knowledge” comes from humans, not LLMs or AI, and so “the social applications of machine learning in non-authoritarian societies are just as parasitic on these forms of human knowledge production as authoritarian governments.”

The Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers’ Workshop summer fundraiser is almost over! I am an alum, instructor and volunteer board member for this nonprofit workshop whose alums include Octavia Butler, Kim Stanley Robinson, Bruce Sterling, Nalo Hopkinson, Kameron Hurley, Nnedi Okorafor, Lucius Shepard, and Ted Chiang! Your donations will help us subsidize tuition for students, making Clarion — and sf/f — more accessible for all kinds of writers.

Libro.fm is the indie-bookstore-friendly, DRM-free audiobook alternative to Audible, the Amazon-owned monopolist that locks every book you buy to Amazon forever. When you buy a book on Libro, they share some of the purchase price with a local indie bookstore of your choosing (Libro is the best partner I have in selling my own DRM-free audiobooks!). As of today, Libro is even better, because it’s available in five new territories and currencies: Canada, the UK, the EU, Australia and New Zealand!

[Image ID: An altered image of the Nuremberg rally, with ranked lines of soldiers facing a towering figure in a many-ribboned soldier's coat. He wears a high-peaked cap with a microchip in place of insignia. His head has been replaced with the menacing red eye of HAL9000 from Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey.' The sky behind him is filled with a 'code waterfall' from 'The Matrix.']

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

 — 

Raimond Spekking (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Acer_Extensa_5220_-_Columbia_MB_06236-1N_-_Intel_Celeron_M_530_-_SLA2G_-_in_Socket_479-5029.jpg

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

 — 

Russian Airborne Troops (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vladislav_Achalov_at_the_Airborne_Troops_Day_in_Moscow_%E2%80%93_August_2,_2008.jpg

“Soldiers of Russia” Cultural Center (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Col._Leonid_Khabarov_in_an_everyday_service_uniform.JPG

CC BY-SA 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

[internetdataandfilereadersreadup]

INTERNET DATA AND FILE READERS READ UP

[psychiatricmentalhealthfacility]

Claiming those without sufficient technological or life extension access are proven criminals or non-citizens or are artificial simulations resembling life that do not need technological access or to have data recorded in relation to them. Criminals claiming their victims are merely automated. Automatics. Automated.

[manmishra]

🚀 Explore how AI can transform your B2B marketing strategy! Discover actionable tactics to enhance buyer engagement and create personalized experiences. Dive into AI-driven buyer-centric strategies today! #B2BMarketing #AI #BuyerEngagement #DigitalMarketing

[abathurofficial]

Abathur

At Abathur, we believe technology should empower, not complicate.

Our mission is to provide seamless, scalable, and secure solutions for businesses of all sizes. With a team of experts specializing in various tech domains, we ensure our clients stay ahead in an ever-evolving digital landscape.

Why Choose Us? Expert-Led Innovation – Our team is built on experience and expertise. Security First Approach – Cybersecurity is embedded in all our solutions. Scalable & Future-Proof – We design solutions that grow with you. Client-Centric Focus – Your success is our priority.

[katrani]

like, technically, i understand why cover letters are different from resumes

emotionally though i hate it, i'm already reaching out obviously i think i'd be a good fit, just let me send a warm e-mail message and attach my resume or fill in a prompt text box or JUST USE THE FUCKING RESUME

[magtecbusinesssolutions]

Transform your business with Magtec ERP! 🌐✨ Discover endless possibilities on a single platform. Book a demo today and see how we can elevate your operations to the next level! 🚀📈

[honestlyvan]

Let me be absolutely clear -- the problems with Tumblr will keep getting worse if the disabled minority and the trans people and the people frothing at the mouth at the opportunity to yell at a transphobe, keep @’ing staff and the developers on this site, tell them to kys, because in the meanwhile the transphobes and racists and white supremacists will keep using the actual tools Tumblr provides for blocking and reporting, further poisoning the datasets used for moderation, and encouraging the idea that using the official tools does nothing to basically ensure the only statistically meaningful data available to Automattic is poisoned, poisoned all the way down, poisoned beyond usability.

Hatespeech and bias needs to be reported for it to be considered statstically significant to act on from a developer point of view. Suicide baiting and spamming any of the official means of communication will get you eliminated as a spammer, even if you’re peppering legitimate criticism within your ventpost about how you hate the new thing. You are playing the TE/RFs game.

[insert-game]

i hate gen AI so much i wish crab raves upon it

[disease]

i've combined myself a new workflow blogging automation... 👀 prepare for massive queues.

[jcmarchi]

OpenAI counter-sues Elon Musk for attempts to ‘take down’ AI rival

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/openai-counter-sues-elon-musk-for-attempts-to-take-down-ai-rival/

OpenAI counter-sues Elon Musk for attempts to ‘take down’ AI rival

OpenAI has launched a legal counteroffensive against one of its co-founders, Elon Musk, and his competing AI venture, xAI.

In court documents filed yesterday, OpenAI accuses Musk of orchestrating a “relentless” and “malicious” campaign designed to “take down OpenAI” after he left the organisation years ago.

Elon’s nonstop actions against us are just bad-faith tactics to slow down OpenAI and seize control of the leading AI innovations for his personal benefit. Today, we counter-sued to stop him.

— OpenAI Newsroom (@OpenAINewsroom) April 9, 2025

The court filing, submitted to the US District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges Musk could not tolerate OpenAI’s success after he had “abandoned and declared [it] doomed.”

OpenAI is now seeking legal remedies, including an injunction to stop Musk’s alleged “unlawful and unfair action” and compensation for damages already caused.   

Origin story of OpenAI and the departure of Elon Musk

The legal documents recount OpenAI’s origins in 2015, stemming from an idea discussed by current CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman to create an AI lab focused on developing artificial general intelligence (AGI) – AI capable of outperforming humans – for the “benefit of all humanity.”

Musk was involved in the launch, serving on the initial non-profit board and pledging $1 billion in donations.   

However, the relationship fractured. OpenAI claims that between 2017 and 2018, Musk’s demands for “absolute control” of the enterprise – or its potential absorption into Tesla – were rebuffed by Altman, Brockman, and then-Chief Scientist Ilya Sutskever. The filing quotes Sutskever warning Musk against creating an “AGI dictatorship.”

Following this disagreement, OpenAI alleges Elon Musk quit in February 2018, declaring the venture would fail without him and that he would pursue AGI development at Tesla instead. Critically, OpenAI contends the pledged $1 billion “was never satisfied—not even close”.   

Restructuring, success, and Musk’s alleged ‘malicious’ campaign

Facing escalating costs for computing power and talent retention, OpenAI restructured and created a “capped-profit” entity in 2019 to attract investment while remaining controlled by the non-profit board and bound by its mission. This structure, OpenAI states, was announced publicly and Musk was offered equity in the new entity but declined and raised no objection at the time.   

OpenAI highlights its subsequent breakthroughs – including GPT-3, ChatGPT, and GPT-4 – achieved massive public adoption and critical acclaim. These successes, OpenAI emphasises, were made after the departure of Elon Musk and allegedly spurred his antagonism.

The filing details a chronology of alleged actions by Elon Musk aimed at harming OpenAI:   

Founding xAI: Musk “quietly created” his competitor, xAI, in March 2023.   

Moratorium call: Days later, Musk supported a call for a development moratorium on AI more advanced than GPT-4, a move OpenAI claims was intended “to stall OpenAI while all others, most notably Musk, caught up”.   

Records demand: Musk allegedly made a “pretextual demand” for confidential OpenAI documents, feigning concern while secretly building xAI.   

Public attacks: Using his social media platform X (formerly Twitter), Musk allegedly broadcast “press attacks” and “malicious campaigns” to his vast following, labelling OpenAI a “lie,” “evil,” and a “total scam”.   

Legal actions: Musk filed lawsuits, first in state court (later withdrawn) and then the current federal action, based on what OpenAI dismisses as meritless claims of a “Founding Agreement” breach.   

Regulatory pressure: Musk allegedly urged state Attorneys General to investigate OpenAI and force an asset auction.   

“Sham bid”: In February 2025, a Musk-led consortium made a purported $97.375 billion offer for OpenAI, Inc.’s assets. OpenAI derides this as a “sham bid” and a “stunt” lacking evidence of financing and designed purely to disrupt OpenAI’s operations, potential restructuring, fundraising, and relationships with investors and employees, particularly as OpenAI considers evolving its capped-profit arm into a Public Benefit Corporation (PBC). One investor involved allegedly admitted the bid’s aim was to gain “discovery”.   

Based on these allegations, OpenAI asserts two primary counterclaims against both Elon Musk and xAI:

Unfair competition: Alleging the “sham bid” constitutes an unfair and fraudulent business practice under California law, intended to disrupt OpenAI and gain an unfair advantage for xAI.   

Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage: Claiming the sham bid intentionally disrupted OpenAI’s existing and potential relationships with investors, employees, and customers. 

OpenAI argues Musk’s actions have forced it to divert resources and expend funds, causing harm. They claim his campaign threatens “irreparable harm” to their mission, governance, and crucial business relationships. The filing also touches upon concerns regarding xAI’s own safety record, citing reports of its AI Grok generating harmful content and misinformation.

Elon’s never been about the mission. He’s always had his own agenda. He tried to seize control of OpenAI and merge it with Tesla as a for-profit – his own emails prove it. When he didn’t get his way, he stormed off.

Elon is undoubtedly one of the greatest entrepreneurs of our…

— OpenAI Newsroom (@OpenAINewsroom) April 9, 2025

The counterclaims mark a dramatic escalation in the legal battle between the AI pioneer and its departed co-founder. While Elon Musk initially sued OpenAI alleging a betrayal of its founding non-profit, open-source principles, OpenAI now contends Musk’s actions are a self-serving attempt to undermine a competitor he couldn’t control.

With billions at stake and the future direction of AGI in the balance, this dispute is far from over.

See also: Deep Cogito open LLMs use IDA to outperform same size models

Want to learn more about AI and big data from industry leaders? Check out AI & Big Data Expo taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with other leading events including Intelligent Automation Conference, BlockX, Digital Transformation Week, and Cyber Security & Cloud Expo.

Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.

[digital-specialist]

Acadecraft Partners with Wadhwani Foundation's Government Digital Transformation Initiative to Develop eLearning Courses

[truetechreview]

Top 5 DeepSeek AI Features Powering Industry Innovation

Table of Contents1. The Problem: Why Legacy Tools Can’t Keep Up2. What Makes DeepSeek AI Unique?3. 5 Game-Changing DeepSeek AI Features (with Real Stories)3.1 Adaptive Learning Engine3.2 Real-Time Anomaly Detection3.3 Natural Language Reports3.4 Multi-Cloud Sync3.5 Ethical AI Auditor4. How These Features Solve Everyday Challenges5. Step-by-Step: Getting Started with DeepSeek AI6. FAQs: Your…