Responsible, by ClearOPS

In partnership with

The old adage that “money does not grow on trees” and the one about “the love of money being the root of all evil” is where this newsletter will focus today.

As usual, I want to challenge your ethics and morality. Get ready for the ride.

What I have for you this week:

• Snippets About What is Going On in Responsible AI

• Caroline’s weekly thoughts

• Chef Maggie Recommends

• Useful Links to Stuff

A NY judge affirmed a ruling that OpenAI cannot delete outputs, even if OpenAI and a user, like me, has signed a contract where they agreed to delete my outputs. This order is meant to cover the evidence being held for the NY Times lawsuit filed against OpenAI. The NY Times has alleged that OpenAI used NY Times content to train its AI models and, therefore, violate copyright. What is interesting about this particular opinion was this:

“But hypothetically, say, a ChatGPT user who had been using, found some way to get around the pay wall, right, and was getting The New York Times content somehow as the output, found a way to do it. And then hears about this case and says, Oh, woah, you know, I’m going to ask them to delete all of my searches and not retain any of my searches going forward. I mean, isn’t that directly the problem?”

So little faith in us humans, right? That we have something to hide, almost like we knew that we were violating the NY Times copyright and would try to cover up our actions.

In case you missed it, because I certainly did, Meta aka Facebook announced that it will start training its AI models on public posts and is not seeking your consent to do so. It is just telling you and using the excuse that “Google and OpenAI did it, so why can’t we?” So, starting May 27th, your posts and comments will go towards training their models (which remember, their models are open source) unless you opt out.

Remember last week when I mentioned all those rascally AI companies doing unethical or immoral marketing? Well, I got another one for you, except this time, the company is trying to scare you into believing that AI will be able to do your work for you (and you will be out of a job). Mechanize plans to fully automate white collar jobs so that we can all sit around and stare at each other with nothing to do all day.

Honestly, what is the point of all this “automation of work?”

Imagine you can bring someone back from the grave? Well, with AI you can and apparently someone did. The victim of a road rage murder was brought to life via AI and was played during the trial. It was the victim’s sister’s idea, based on her struggles with trying to write the victim impact statement. She said she thought it would be better coming from her brother and that is when she had the idea to recreate him with AI. This is a strange story and really brings up some moral challenges. But to allow this in a criminal court case where a defendant faces jail time?