According to a legal filing from Dominion Voting Systems, which is suing Fox News, many of Fox's top stars were contemptuous of claims that Donald Trump had been cheated out of the 2020 election. Among those stars was Tucker Carlson. But that didn't matter to him:
On Nov. 12, in a text chain with Ms. Ingraham and Mr. Hannity, Mr. Carlson pointed to a tweet in which a Fox reporter, Jacqui Heinrich, fact-checked a tweet from Mr. Trump referring to Fox broadcasts and said there was no evidence of voter fraud from Dominion.
“Please get her fired,” Mr. Carlson said. He added: “It needs to stop immediately, like tonight. It’s measurably hurting the company. The stock price is down. Not a joke.” Ms. Heinrich had deleted her tweet by the next morning.
They sure know their audience.
I think there is actually a chance Fox will pay dearly for this. Plenty of evidence of actual malice (in the legal defamation sense) and very plausible and plausibly high potential damages.
Fingers crossed!
Start making more money weekly. This is valuable part time work for everyone. The best part ,work from the comfort of your house and get paid from $10k-$20k each week . Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week. Visit this article
for more details.. https://createmaxwealth.blogspot.com
I think there is no chance that FOX will suffer any consequences for this. This will make them more popular with their audience, who do not care about objective truth.
It's an entire organization of satanic jackals. Also, the sky is blue.
But seriously, how has it been 24 hours since the full transcript of a New York Times reporter's f'ing wild (seriously, it's long, but read ALL of it) conversation with ChatGPT, with nary a peep from Kevin?! https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/technology/bing-chatbot-transcript.html
Did I read something like that ChatGPT is learning to interact with humans by reading fiction?
But the activities in fiction are inherently abnormal, so of course it will turn into a lunatic.
I just read the entire conversation the reporter had with “Bing/Sydney”. It was frightening. It’s behind a NYT paywall but Digby has the jist of it. If you can read the whole thing you should. It made me feel like we will soon be living in a bad science fiction movie.
I hope everyone realized, no matter what it "says" the chat bot has no thoughts, feelings, desires, emotions or volitions of any kind.
Exactly. The breathless coverage about how "terrifying" and "unsettling" it was to chat with a chatbot is about as meaningful as contemplating how terrifying and unsettling some creepy doll or puppet is. Or whether the godzilla in the latest godzilla movie looks so real that it might crawl off the screen and actually wreck Tokyo.
It mimicked those things in an unsettling way. I could easily see a person who is already troubled going down a rabbit hole with the thing. And what happens when you have deepfakes “communicating” with such people?
Belatedly able to read this.
omg, that was absolutely hilarious!
This thing is sophisticated enough now to develop it's own cult,
Give it a streak in it's hair and it's Tulsi Gabbard.
It is a sophisticated case of 'garbage in, garbage out', something that I thought computer programmers realized a long time ago.
From an article on NY Magazine today:
"A chatbot trained on Twitter, and exposed to exploitation by Twitter users, did what it was told, as summed up by headlines like this: “Twitter taught Microsoft’s AI chatbot to be a racist asshole in less than a day."
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/why-bing-is-being-creepy.html
Curious to see if and how Kevin tells us why not to be concerned about this, and how everything will turn out well after all.
I know the reporter did that because he thought it would be newsworthy, but people who would have long conversations with chat programs are themselves mentally ill. Talk about hearing voices... What is the chatty thing going to "learn" to do when it has crazy people (or reporters pretending to be crazy) feeding it info?
I suspect the reporter was being paid for his convo. Also, writing the article. But your point about crazy people -- and crazy-making -- is spot on.
All those crashes by AI controlled self-driving Teslas? They might be features rather than bugs.
They know their audience because what they do isn't news, it's incitement.
Bingo!
It would be nice to imagine some massive judgement against Fox puts them out of business, but even Alex Jones is still pumping out lies for money. So... little to nothing will come of this. We're stuck. Some % of the population is so radicalized by grievance that they eat this up. It's highly profitable to feed them. The NFL does business with them and they don't care. All these advertisers support this most despicable business and they don't care.
Whatcha gonna do? Rupert and Donald will die some day (rooting for today!) and they will be replaced by some other demagogue.
America is broken beyond repair.
Re: putting Fox out of business. As much as it dominates and drives American news coverage, Fox is but one small part of Rupert Murdoch's world-spanning, society-destroying empire. And his children are eager to continue his work.
If the lawyers at my company ever saw analogous text messages, the participants would be fired twice before anyone could say, "Man, that was dumb".
And if I were someone with a grudge, I would note that those phones are probably chock full of similar chucklefests about all sorts of other people...
FOX News is the single most dangerous entity in the rightwing propaganda machine. You can't escape it. FOX is playing in every YMCA exercise room, every bar, and almost every public place that blares TV 24/7. Some friends and I once convinced the bartender to change the channel and it nearly caused a riot.
Some years back, I was staying at a hotel in Los Alamos, and of course, Fox Newz was on in the breakfast room. When I asked the receptionist at the desk if it could be changed to another station,, I was told that the hotel was contractually obligated(!) to keep Fox and only Fox on ... but they'd turn the volume way down for me.
I went to friend's funeral last month. There was a hour and half break in the viewing hours, to allow for dinner. Some food had been set out in the funeral home's lounge for the family, who invited me to stay and eat with them. And Fox News was playing in the lounge. Which provoked the deceased's son-in-law to launch into a full scale off-the-deep-end rightwing rant.
Long ago, there was ELIZA. Even then, it was good enough to fool a few people. But, to your point, the people who preferentially engage with any such thing are going to be those for whom it is good enough to fool them.
Anyhow, back to ELIZA. (There was also PARRY, but sufficient unto the century, etc.) A friend of mine and I spent a few minutes talking to ELIZA and finding it rather stupid, so we went digging into the internals to see how it worked. At once we found a dictionary file, and opened it. The first word was "fu¢k". "That's the problem," said my friend, "we haven't been talking dirty enough to it."
If I recall correctly (and let me know if I didn't), in Ex Machina, a rich inventor has produced a number of humanoid robots. Of course, they're all youthful-looking, beautiful females and configured for ... let's just say, "his enjoyment."
The most recent one acts and talks in an amazingly human way, and the inventor guy says it's because it has read a lot of stuff from the Internet. (this is where the warning bells should have gone off!)
Of course, the currently active fembot later kills him before going forth into the world. Had the inventor ever looked at the "comment" sections, he'd have thought twice about using this as his way to "humanize" his creations.
For that matter, if he'd ever just READ: Frankenstein, RUR, or any host of more modern sf; or watched Battlestar Galactica (particularly The Good One), he might have realized that you can't give a creation human-level intelligence and then treat it like property.