Itemoids

Elon Musk

Tech leaders are calling for a six-month pause on training more powerful AI systems

Quartz

qz.com › elon-musk-ai-open-letter-chatgpt-six-month-pause-1850277273

More than 1,100 people have now signed an open letter calling for a six-month pause on the training of AI systems more powerful than OpenAI’s GPT-4. The signatories, which include tech leaders Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak, and AI experts Stuart Russell and Yoshua Bengio, warn that the technology could “pose profound…

Read more...

My 6-Year-Old Son Died. Then the Anti-vaxxers Found Out.

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 03 › covid-vaccine-misinformation-social-media-harassment › 673537

My 6-year-old boy died in January. We lost him after a household accident, one likely brought on by a rare cerebral-swelling condition. Paramedics got his heart beating, but it was too late to save his brain. I could hold his hand, look at the small birthmark on it, comb his hair, and call out for him, but if he could hear me or feel me, he gave no sign. He had been a child in perpetual motion, but now we couldn’t get him to wiggle a finger.

My grief is profound, ragged, desperate. I cannot imagine how anything could feel worse.

But vaccine opponents on the internet, who somehow assumed that a COVID shot was responsible for my son's death, thought my family’s pain was funny. “Lol. Yay for the jab. Right? Right?” wrote one person on Twitter. “Your decision to vaccinate your son resulted in his death,” wrote another. “This is all on YOU.” “Murder in the first.”

[Read: Twitter has no answers for #DiedSuddenly]

I’m a North Carolina–based journalist who specializes in countering misinformation on social media. I know that Twitter, Facebook, and other networks amplify bad information; that their algorithms feed on anger and division; that anonymity and distance bring out the worst in some people online. And yet I had never anticipated that anyone would mock and terrorize a grieving parent. I’ve now received thousands of harassing posts. Some people emailed me at work.

For the record, my son saw some of the finest pediatric ICU doctors in the world. He was in fact vaccinated against COVID-19. None of his doctors deemed that relevant to his medical condition. They likened his death to a lightning strike.

Strangers online saw in our story a conspiracy—a cover-up of childhood fatalities caused by COVID vaccines, a ploy to protect Big Pharma.

To them, what happened to my son was not a tragedy. It was karma for suckered parents like me.

Although some abusive posts showed up on my public Facebook page, the problem started on Twitter—whose new CEO, Elon Musk, gutted the platform’s content-moderation team after taking over.

I posted my son’s obituary there because we’d started a fundraiser in his name for the arts program at his neighborhood school. Books didn’t hold his interest, but he loved drawing big, blocky Where the Wild Things Are–style creatures. The fundraiser gave us something, anything to do. Most people were kind. Many donated. But within days, anti-vaxxers hijacked the conversation, overwhelming my feed. “Billy you killed your kid man,” one person wrote.

Accompanying the obituary was a picture of him showing off his new University of North Carolina basketball jersey—No. 1, Leaky Black—before a game. He’s all arms and legs. He will only ever always be that. Cheeks like an apple. His bangs flopped over his almond-shaped eyes. “Freckles like constellations,” his obit read. He looks unpretentious, shy, and bored. Like most children his age, anything that takes more than an hour, such as a college basketball game, is too long.  

Strangers swiped the photo from Twitter and wrote vile things on it. They’d mined my tweets, especially ones where I had written about the public-health benefits of vaccination. Someone needed to make me pay for vaccinating my child, one person insinuated. Another said my other children would be next if they were vaccinated too.

I tried to push back. Please take the conspiracy theories elsewhere, I pleaded on Twitter. That made things worse, so I stopped engaging. A blogger mocked me for fleeing social media. Commenters joined in. My grief, their content. “Your one job as a parent was to protect your children,” wrote one person. “You failed miserably.”

Our family’s therapist distinguishes “clean grief” from “dirty grief.” Clean grief is pure sadness. Dirty grief is guilt and what-ifs.

I can’t fathom clean grief when you lose a healthy child so suddenly. But my doubts aren’t about vaccination. I am filled with other questions. Had we missed earlier signs of illness? But also: Did he like me? What would he have been like as a teenager? Did he ever have a crush?

At first, I kept the harassment to myself. I didn’t want my family to know. I worried that my sadness—the sadness that I owed my son—would be crowded out by anger. So I leaned into distractions: the people crammed into my living room, sitting on the floor and sifting through my records. Grubhub coupons. Friends washing our dishes. Cheesy baked spaghetti with cooking instructions taped to the foil. Better coffee than the swill I usually buy. Meg Ryan comedies. Lots of wine. Kids—mine, nephews, nieces, neighbors—everywhere. Brave bursts of laughter. Like a weird party for the worst thing that’s ever happened to me.

[Jon D. Lee: The utter familiarity of even the strangest vaccine conspiracy theories]

I also remember the ping of my phone notifications. When our friends and relatives left at night, the pings kept coming from these strange ghouls on the internet. I wished that I believed in hell so I could imagine them going there. Losing a child is a brutal reminder that nothing is fair in this world. The harassment made me feel like there was nothing good in it either.

Some of the messages may have come from bots. Others appeared to be written by real people, including a guy whose email address identified the flooring company he owned in Alaska. “You killed your own son?” he wrote in the subject line. “You’re an idiot.” Do his family and friends know that he does this for kicks?

I’m not the only parent being harassed in this way. Some of the trolls posted photos of other children, insinuating that they had died because of COVID vaccines. I feel for the grieving mothers and fathers who receive those messages.

My friends and I reported some of the worst posts to Facebook and Twitter. A few users were booted from Twitter. But in most cases, we got no response; in a few, we received tepid form messages.

“Billy, we reviewed the comment you reported and found that it doesn’t go against our Community Standards,” Facebook told me after a stranger wormed their way onto an old post from my personal page to mock me. If I was offended, I could block them, the company said. Facebook might feel conflicted about whether to censor nipples, but tormenting a bereaved parent gets a pass.

Social-media companies will have to make a choice about the kind of space they want to create. Is it a space to connect, as Facebook solemnly promised in one 2020 commercial? Or is it a space where the worst behavior imaginable is not only tolerated but amplified?

In truth, although the cruelty of these strangers shocked me, they feel distant—like cats wailing in the alley. I can shut the window and ignore them. Nothing they say or do can fill the space he still takes up. I can smell him on his favorite blue blanket. I can feel him when I squeeze the bouncy balls that he hid, like treasure, in a wooden box by his bed. I can see him in the muddy Crocs that he left behind in one of the backyard nooks he liked to hide in. His absence feels impossible. I keep waiting for him to come back.

I can imagine my son asking, with characteristic bluntness, whether the people being mean to me on social media are good guys or bad guys, like in the movies. I probably would have reassured him that none of the messages I received was really about him. They were just a reflection of some people’s desire to spread lies, and of the callous way we treat one another online. The messages don’t affect how I choose to remember my boy.

In the last picture I have of him, taken five days before we lost him, he’s getting a bad haircut at a kids’ salon. The barber’s chair looks like a miniature Batmobile, and his legs are folded up inside. He was tall for his age, as I once was. He was already pretty like his mom. In the picture, he’s watching Paw Patrol on a little monitor placed strategically in front of the chair to keep the kids straight and still. He’s old for the show, but he’s too nice or shy to say so.

In the ICU, as we prepared to say goodbye to our son, my wife borrowed a pair of scissors from the nurse. And, being careful not to lay on any tubes going into and out of him, she crawled into his bed and straightened his bangs.

Blue Check Marks Were Always Shameless

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › technology › archive › 2023 › 03 › twitter-blue-verification-check-mark-elon-musk › 673512

Many years ago, when picking up my teenage daughter from an outdoor mall, I found myself surrounded by her friends. “You’re verified,” one of them said, gushing. At first I thought this was some new youth slang term for “cool” or even “uncool.” But alas, she was referring to Twitter. I had a blue check on the service. That kind of verified.

My kid’s friends would have found it impressive to be verified because actual famous people, such as Kim Kardashian and the fictional mascot of the Wendy’s burger chain, were verified. I was verified because I had an @theatlantic.com email address. On social media, as in reality television, accomplishment is less important than occupying the subject position of the accomplished. The verified badge signaled the second.

[Read: Why would anyone pay for Facebook?]

After Elon Musk bought Twitter for $40 bajillion last year, he effectively nuked that signal by selling the badges as a part of Twitter Blue, his new Elon-fealty subscription. In this new system, a badge signaled that a user had spent $8 that month, rather than that they were the recent-college-graduate operator of a fast-food-restaurant account, or that they had an @theatlantic.com email address. The previous badges—or the “real” ones, if you prefer—had indicated that an account holder was “notable,” in Twitter’s words. Now they got served with a snide codicil: “This is a legacy verified account. It may or may not be notable.” But the legacy blue checks persisted, coexisting tenuously alongside the bought ones.

Until soon, maybe. Yesterday evening, @verified, the verified account for Twitter Verified, announced that the company would start “winding down” the legacy program as of April 1, ousting maybe-notable people such as me from the ranks of the positionally accomplished and replacing us with individuals willing to pay Elon Musk for the privilege.

Response to the announcement has included the predictable lamentations and pearl-clutching of the too-online: Imposters will proliferate! They will. When Twitter first launched the fealty verification plan in November, an enterprising culture jammer made a fake account for Eli Lilly and posted that the multinational pharmaceutical company would start giving insulin away. The prank caused the company’s stock to drop by 4 percent or so—and may have influenced its decision to drop the actual price of insulin to $35 a month. What will happen when such impersonations are made even easier? Something bad, probably.

It's exhausting to litigate the safety of life online, because online life is not safe. We should know this by now. Awful things happen on the internet. Misinformation rules because content, disguised as information, spreads so easily. There are few consequences for using the internet for lies or abuse. Much of the abuse is sexist or racist or both or both and worse. All of this is true. Please don’t tweet from your Twitter account that I failed to note this truth.

But verified accounts were never innocent either. Celebrities and politicians and hamburger restaurants got verified because they were public figures. Media professionals, game developers, DJs, thirst-trap models, and other maybe-notables got verified because they were public figures on the internet. Some people, including journalists like me, had justified concerns about securing our identities. But even as that risk was (and is) real, other truths circled in its orbit.

Chief among these: Verification created two classes of online persons, the maybe-notable and the rabble. As my daughter’s friends intuited, verification replaced accomplishment, trustworthiness, and other properties that previously formed the foundation of notability with a badge that merely symbolized it. You can call this kind of notability “internet fame” if you want, but imagine if a real celebrity needed a badge to be recognized as such. Someone famous is famous because they’re famous, not because they flashed a badge at you like a fame cop.

[Read: The problem with verification]

Then verification fused with the mega-scale amplification of Twitter to spread the simulation of renown. Journalism has never been a great way to get wealthy or famous, but Twitter—more than any other social network—gave journalists, writers, and media personalities an opportunity to build a personal following while getting paid as an employee. Outlets deemed sufficiently valid had semi-automated processes for verifying all of their writers (as was true for The Atlantic, The New York Times, and, so far as I can tell, Garden & Gun). I can’t deny that verification has helped prevent some duplicity and its consequences. But I also can’t deny that verification inflated the vanity of many of us who got verified.

Hooks for this use of verification have long been built right into the service. When I look at my followers on Twitter, the software gives me a separate interface to see all of my verified followers. The full list is made up of random people such as you or my wife, whereas the “Verified” tab shows more important citizens such as video producers, podcast hosts, and speaker-author-guru-moms. (To be honest, I don’t even know whether hoi polloi Twitter users have access to this tab, or if it’s only for the blue checks like myself, the ones who really deserve it.)

Perhaps being extant and semipopular is sufficient reason to earn a badge that denotes “being extant and semipopular.” But we all should have been more circumspect about the vainglory of blue-checkdom. It is shameful and embarrassing to pay Elon Musk a few bucks for a fake mark of importance. But it was equally shameful and embarrassing to take one for free and pretend that it ever meant something.

Food pods and vertical farming could help us grow crops on Mars

CNN

www.cnn.com › 2023 › 03 › 24 › world › mars-food-interstellar-lab-climate-scn-spc-intl › index.html

Even before we reached the moon, humans had been making plans to send people to Mars, and in recent years, the dream has looked closer to becoming reality. NASA plans to have boots on the red planet in the 2030s, while Elon Musk's SpaceX plans to get there even sooner.

She was weeks away from maternity leave at Twitter. Then Elon Musk took over

CNN

www.cnn.com › 2023 › 03 › 06 › tech › elon-musk-twitter-employees-year-of-uncertainty › index.html

Bim Ali was early in her first pregnancy when billionaire Elon Musk agreed to buy Twitter, where she worked as a program manager on the Redbird core technologies team. During the months of intense uncertainty that followed, Ali stuck with the company, attempting to tune out the deluge of news about the on-again, off-again deal to focus on her health and the health of her child.

Is Ron DeSantis Flaming Out Already?

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 03 › desantis-ukraine-pro-russia-position-gop-presidential-nomination › 673392

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has long sought to avoid taking a position on Russia’s war in Ukraine. On the eve of the Russian invasion, 165 Florida National Guard members were stationed on a training mission in Ukraine. They were evacuated in February 2022 to continue their mission in neighboring countries. When they returned to Florida in August, DeSantis did not greet them. He has not praised, or even acknowledged, their work in any public statement.

DeSantis did find time, however, to admonish Ukrainian officials in October for not showing enough gratitude to new Twitter owner Elon Musk. (Musk returned the favor by endorsing DeSantis for president.) On tour this month to promote his new book, DeSantis has clumsily evaded questions about the Russian invasion. When a reporter for The Times of London pressed the governor, DeSantis scolded him: “Perhaps you should cover some other ground? I think I’ve said enough.”

Even his allies found this medley of past hawkishness and present evasiveness worrying—especially because he was on record, in 2014 and 2015, urging the Obama administration to send both “defensive and offensive” weapons to Ukraine after the Russian annexation of Crimea. So last night, DeSantis delivered a more definitive answer on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show.

DeSantis’s statement on Ukraine was everything that Russian President Vladimir Putin and his admirers could have wished for from a presumptive candidate for president. The governor began by listing America’s “vital interests” in a way that explicitly excluded NATO and the defense of Europe. He accepted the present Russian line that Putin’s occupation of Ukraine is a mere “territorial dispute.” He endorsed “peace” as the objective without regard to the terms of that peace, another pro-Russian talking point. He conceded the Russian argument that American aid to Ukraine amounts to direct involvement in the conflict. He endorsed and propagated the fantasy—routinely advanced by pro-Putin guests on Fox talk shows—that the Biden administration is somehow plotting “regime change” in Moscow. He denounced as futile the economic embargo against Russia—and baselessly insinuated that Ukraine is squandering U.S. financial assistance. He ended by flirting with the idea of U.S. military operations against Mexico, an idea that originated on the extreme right but has migrated toward the Republican mainstream.

[Elliot Ackerman: The arsenal of democracy is reopening for business]

A careful reader of DeSantis’s statement will find that it was composed to provide him with some lawyerly escape hatches from his anti-Ukraine positions. For example, it ruled out F-16s specifically rather than warplanes in general. But those loopholes matter less than the statement’s context. After months of running and hiding, DeSantis at last produced a detailed position on Ukraine—at the summons of a Fox talking head.

There’s a scene in the TV drama Succession in which the media mogul Logan Roy tests would-be candidates for the Republican presidential nomination by ordering them to bring him a Coke. The man who eventually gets the nod is the one who didn’t even wait to be asked—he arrived at the sit-down with Logan’s Coke already in hand. That’s the candidate DeSantis is showing himself to be.

DeSantis is a machine engineered to win the Republican presidential nomination. The hardware is a lightly updated version of donor-pleasing mechanics from the Paul Ryan era. The software is newer. DeSantis operates on the latest culture-war code: against vaccinations, against the diversity industry, against gay-themed books in school libraries. The packaging is even more up-to-the-minute. Older models—Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush—made some effort to appeal to moderates and independents. None of that from DeSantis. He refuses to even speak to media platforms not owned by Rupert Murdoch. His message to the rest of America is more of the finger-pointing disdain he showed last year for high-school students who wore masks when he visited a college.

The problem that Republicans confront with this newly engineered machine is this: Have they built themselves a one-stage rocket—one that achieves liftoff but never reaches escape velocity? The DeSantis trajectory to the next Republican National Convention is fast and smooth. He raised nearly $10 million in February—a single month. That’s on top of the more than $90 million remaining from the $200 million he raised for his reelection campaign as governor. His allies talk of raising $200 million more by this time next year, and there is no reason to doubt they will reach their target. DeSantis has been going up in the polls, too. According to Quinnipiac, Donald Trump’s lead over DeSantis in a four-way race between them, Mike Pence, and Nikki Haley has shriveled to just two points.

[Read: The martyr at CPAC]

After that midpoint, however, the DeSantis flight path begins to look underpowered.

Florida Republicans will soon pass—and DeSantis pledged he would sign—a law banning abortion after six weeks. That bill is opposed by 57 percent of those surveyed even inside Florida. Another poll found that 75 percent of Floridians oppose the ban. It also showed that 77 percent oppose permitless concealed carry, which DeSantis supports, and that 61 percent disapprove of his call to ban the teaching of critical race theory as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion policies on college campuses. As the political strategist Simon Rosenberg noted: “Imagine how these play outside FL.”

But even this understates the DeSantis design flaw.

More dangerous than the unpopular positions DeSantis holds are the popular positions he does not hold. What is DeSantis’s view on health care? He doesn’t seem to have one. President Joe Biden has delivered cheap insulin to U.S. users. Good idea or not? Silence from DeSantis. There’s no DeSantis jobs policy; he hardly speaks about inflation. Homelessness? The environment? Nothing. Even on crime, DeSantis must avoid specifics, because specifics might remind his audience that Florida’s homicide numbers are worse than New York’s or California’s.

DeSantis just doesn’t seem to care much about what most voters care about. And voters in turn do not care much about what DeSantis cares most about.

[Yascha Mounk: How to save academic freedom from Ron DeSantis]

Last fall, DeSantis tried a stunt to influence the midterm elections: At considerable taxpayer expense, he flew asylum seekers to Martha’s Vineyard. The ploy enraged liberals on Twitter. It delighted the Fox audience. Nobody else, however, seemed especially interested. As one strategist said to Politico: “It’s mostly college-educated white women that are going to decide this thing. Republicans win on pocketbook issues with them, not busing migrants across the country.”

A new CNN poll finds that 59 percent of Republicans care most that their candidate agrees with them on the issues; only 41 percent care most about beating Biden. DeSantis has absorbed that wish and is answering it. Last night, in his statement on Ukraine, DeSantis delivered another demonstration of this nomination-or-bust strategy.

DeSantis will be a candidate of the Republican base, for the Republican base. Like Trump, he delights in displaying his lack of regard for everyone else. Trump, however, is driven by his psychopathologies and cannot emotionally cope with disagreement. DeSantis is a rational actor and is following what somebody has convinced him is a sound strategy. It looks like this:

Woo the Fox audience and win the Republican nomination. ?? Become president.

Written out like that, you can see the missing piece. DeSantis is surely intelligent and disciplined enough to see it too. But the programming installed in him prevents him from acting on what he sees. His approach to winning the nomination will put the general election beyond his grasp. He must hope that some external catastrophe will defeat his Democratic opponent for him—a recession, maybe—because DeSantis is choosing a path that cannot get him to his goal.