No, companies need to take responsibility for what they sell, and how.

Also, unfortunately, when I hear "The algorithms pushing content online have profound impacts on what we believe" I can't help but also hear "so we must take control of these to help pushing our agenda. For the greater good![1]"

[1] (tm) Gellert Grindelwald

It won't, though.

Companies that use it won't, without law requiring it. Police departments won't either.

> "There's no such thing as a neutral platform,"

This is a very weird, and pretty clearly false, statement. There is absolutely such a thing as a neutral platform: A completely un-moderated forum is a neutral platform. We may or may not like what the outcome of that is, but it is neutral.

No, unmoderated online platforms can easily become biased via some dominant groups of members that exhibit intolerance against views they don't share. The result is implicit moderation.

The platform is still neutral, in your example, even if the community causes self-censorship or self-exclusion to "outsiders" by its dominance.

The platform is the carrier, not the message.

There's no such thing as implicit moderation. There might be people getting sick of it and leaving, but that's not the same thing as moderation.

There's obviously no such thing as neutrality, and thus there cannot be a neutral platform. (Similarly, there's no such thing as culturally-neutral technology.)

Ok, explain to me in what way an unmoderated forum is non-neutral.

Typically, a forum has a listing of posts. What function enumerates the listing?

If we sort by newest, then those who can post most frequently will dominate. If we sort by most comments, we'll get emotionbait; by deepest comment trees, most nuanced and controversial topics. Sorting by oldest prioritizes those who most frequently venture out to find new forums, which leads to domination by a network of well-connected people who discover new forums by systematically maintaining information asymmetry over forum creators.

IRL example: Stock exchanges. Listings are sorted by freshness and causality, so being close to the exchange ends up dominating almost all other factors.

More generally, this is the Reputation Problem: How can we possibly grant any sort of social credit to anonymous passerby without creating side incentives which will be immediately and horribly abused?

> If we sort by newest, then those who can post most frequently will dominate. If we sort by most comments, we'll get emotionbait; by deepest comment trees, most nuanced and controversial topics. Sorting by oldest prioritizes those who most frequently venture out to find new forums, which leads to domination by a network of well-connected people who discover new forums by systematically maintaining information asymmetry over forum creators.

What if you allow people to choose their own preferred sort, and don't have a default (i.e. force them to explicitly choose)?

> IRL example: Stock exchanges. Listings are sorted by freshness and causality, so being close to the exchange ends up dominating almost all other factors.

I think I get what you're trying to say here, and I don't want to nitpick too much, but I don't think this is true. At least, if i'm understanding you correctly. The limit orderbook is a priority queue, sorted only partially by freshness, but mostly by proximity to the midpoint of the bid-ask spread. Being close to the exchange is important for certain high frequency strategies, but definitely not all of them.

> More generally, this is the Reputation Problem: How can we possibly grant any sort of social credit to anonymous passerby without creating side incentives which will be immediately and horribly abused?

Ya, it's a tricky problem. But I think it's a little early to call it an unsolvable problem. There are ways you can try to attack it, like proof of work or web of trust type systems. But yes, reputation is hard.

It is a pity that she mixed the gender issues and technology issues and it makes a lot of sense why she normally wouldn't.

Is the focus here the technical observations or the #MeToo observations? Because one of those is fairly noncontroversial and likely to promote generally nodding and murmuring. The other is going to start a flamewar about cases like Stallman's.

Indtead of wishing and throwing a tantrum when the world isnt what one would like to be, i would very much like to propose another way, which is the only one proven in history that works to actually change it. Its called "taking action".

Open AI was a good consequence of that premise. If you are not happy about then create another one.

If I become an author of an algorithm or trained network that can break the world (do a Big Bad) and upload it to GitHub claiming that it can break the world and you absolutely must not use this can I be held responsible?

Copernicus was also guilty of wrongthink.

Why is it necessary for walled gardens to enforce political standards on a supposedly decentralized Internet?

Re: The AI Community Needs fo Take Responsibility for Its Technology and Its Actions

"Fo take" is probably a typo but "to fake" doesn't really fit either ;-)

First, the AI community would need to understand its technology itself ;)

never trust a psychologist with epistemology

The AI Community Needs to FAKE Responsibility for Its Technology and Its Actions