Tootfinder

AI, AGI, and learning efficiency
An addendum to this: I'm someone who would accurately be called "anti-AI" in the modern age, yet I'm also an "AI researcher" in some ways (have only dabbled in neutral nets).
I don't like:
- AI systems that are the product of labor abuses towards the data workers who curate their training corpora.
- AI systems that use inordinate amounts of water and energy during an intensifying climate catastrophe.
- AI systems that are fundamentally untrustworthy and which reinforce and amplify human biases, *especially* when those systems are exposed in a way that invites harms.
- AI systems which are designed to "save" my attention or brain bandwidth but such my doing so cripple my understating of the things I might use them for when I fact that understanding was the thing I was supposed to be using my time to gain, and where the later lack of such understanding will be costly to me.
- AI systems that are designed by and whose hype fattens the purse of people who materially support genocide and the construction of concentration campus (a.k.a. fascists).
In other words, I do not like and except in very extenuating circumstances I will not use ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, etc.
On the other hand, I do like:
- AI research as an endeavor to discover new technologies.
- Generative AI as a research topic using a spectrum of different methods.
- Speculating about non-human intelligences, including artificial ones, and including how to behave ethically towards them.
- Large language models as a specific technique, and autoencoders and other neural networks, assuming they're used responsibly in terms of both resource costs & presentation to end users.
I write this because I think some people (especially folks without CS backgrounds) may feel that opposing AI for all the harms it's causing runs the risk of opposing technological innovation more broadly, and/or may feel there's a risk that they will be "left behind" as everyone else embraces the hype and these technologies inevitability become ubiquitous and essential (I know I feel this way sometimes). Just know that is entirely possible and logically consistent to both oppose many forms of modern AI while also embracing and even being optimistic about AI research, and that while LLMs are currently all the rage, they're not the endpoint of what AI will look like in the future, and their downsides are not inherent in AI development.

My point here is not to chide, but to note the system of incentives that keeps money flowing to authoritarians.
They’re winning by making less ethical decisions easy and responsible alternatives difficult if not impossible.
This isn’t just a consumer and social media problem; so much of mainstream journalism today is motivated by professional respectability
— which doesn’t necessarily mean lying, but taking the path of least resistance:
avoiding certain topics or la…

Towards Transparent Ethical AI: A Roadmap for Trustworthy Robotic Systems
Ahmad Farooq, Kamran Iqbal
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.05846 https://arxiv.org/pdf…

Towards Transparent Ethical AI: A Roadmap for Trustworthy Robotic Systems
As artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics increasingly permeate society, ensuring the ethical behavior of these systems has become paramount. This paper contends that transparency in AI decision-making processes is fundamental to developing trustworthy and ethically aligned robotic systems. We explore how transparency facilitates accountability, enables informed consent, and supports the debugging of ethical algorithms. The paper outlines technical, ethical, and practical challenges in imple…

Do Ethical AI Principles Matter to Users? A Large-Scale Analysis of User Sentiment and Satisfaction
Stefan Pasch, Min Chul Cha
https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.05913 https://

Do Ethical AI Principles Matter to Users? A Large-Scale Analysis of User Sentiment and Satisfaction
As AI systems become increasingly embedded in organizational workflows and consumer applications, ethical principles such as fairness, transparency, and robustness have been widely endorsed in policy and industry guidelines. However, there is still scarce empirical evidence on whether these principles are recognized, valued, or impactful from the perspective of users. This study investigates the link between ethical AI and user satisfaction by analyzing over 100,000 user reviews of AI products …

PenTest2.0: Towards Autonomous Privilege Escalation Using GenAI
Haitham S. Al-Sinani, Chris J. Mitchell
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06742 https://

PenTest2.0: Towards Autonomous Privilege Escalation Using GenAI
Ethical hacking today relies on highly skilled practitioners executing complex sequences of commands, which is inherently time-consuming, difficult to scale, and prone to human error. To help mitigate these limitations, we previously introduced 'PenTest++', an AI-augmented system combining automation with generative AI supporting ethical hacking workflows. However, a key limitation of PenTest++ was its lack of support for privilege escalation, a crucial element of ethical hacking. In this paper…

The scale of investment and the involvement of governments means ROI must be found (or rather created) now, by any means necessary! Demand already is being forcefully created to justify these expenditures. Business models, regulations and policies/politics are pivoted in lockstep. Aside from all the conceptual, ethical and environmental issues of LLMs and their required infrastructure, these shifts are already also impacting chip/hardware production pipelines and start spelling the end of pe…

samim (@samim@mastodon.social)
Attached: 1 image The AI infrastructure build-out is so gigantic that in the past 6m, it contributed more to the growth of the U.S. economy than /all of consumer spending/ The 'magnificent 7' spent more than $100 billion on data centers and the like in the past three months *alone* As a % of GDP, spending on AI infra has already exceeded spending on telecom and internet infrastructure from the dot-com boom—and it’s still growing. This spending is so big it’s acting as a sort of privat…

Human-Machine Collaboration and Ethical Considerations in Adaptive Cyber-Physical Systems
Zoe Pfister
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02578 https://

Human-Machine Collaboration and Ethical Considerations in Adaptive Cyber-Physical Systems
Adaptive Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS) are systems that integrate both physical and computational capabilities, which can adjust in response to changing parameters. Furthermore, they increasingly incorporate human-machine collaboration, allowing them to benefit from the individual strengths of humans and machines. Human-Machine Teaming (HMT) represents the most advanced paradigm of human-machine collaboration, envisioning seamless teamwork between humans and machines. However, achieving effectiv…

Can AI be Consentful?
Giada Pistilli, Bruna Trevelin
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.01051 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.01051

Can AI be Consentful?
The evolution of generative AI systems exposes the challenges of traditional legal and ethical frameworks built around consent. This chapter examines how the conventional notion of consent, while fundamental to data protection and privacy rights, proves insufficient in addressing the implications of AI-generated content derived from personal data. Through legal and ethical analysis, we show that while individuals can consent to the initial use of their data for AI training, they cannot meaningf…

Overly academic/distanced ethical discussions
Had a weird interaction with @/brainwane@social.coop just now. I misinterpreted one of their posts quoting someone else and I think the combination of that plus an interaction pattern where I'd assume their stance on something and respond critically to that ended up with me getting blocked. I don't have hard feelings exactly, and this post is only partly about this particular person, but I noticed something interesting by the end of the conversation that had been bothering me. They repeatedly criticized me for assuming what their position was, but never actually stated their position. They didn't say: "I'm bothered you assumed my position was X, it's actually Y." They just said "I'm bothered you assumed my position was X, please don't assume my position!" I get that it's annoying to have people respond to a straw man version of your argument, but when I in response asked some direct questions about what their position was, they gave some non-answers and then blocked me. It's entirely possible it's a coincidence, and they just happened to run out of patience on that iteration, but it makes me take their critique of my interactions a bit less seriously. I suspect that they just didn't want to hear what I was saying, while at the same time they wanted to feel as if they were someone who values public critique and open discussion of tricky issues (if anyone reading this post also followed our interaction and has a different opinion of my behavior, I'd be glad to hear it; it's possible In effectively being an asshole here and it would be useful to hear that if so).
In any case, the fact that at the end of the entire discussion, I'm realizing I still don't actually know their position on whether they think the AI use case in question is worthwhile feels odd. They praised the system on several occasions, albeit noting some drawbacks while doing so. They said that the system was possibly changing their anti-AI stance, but then got mad at me for assuming this meant that they thought this use-case was justified. Maybe they just haven't made up their mind yet but didn't want to say that?
Interestingly, in one of their own blog posts that got linked in the discussion, they discuss a different AI system, and despite listing a bunch of concrete harms, conclude that it's okay to use it. That's fine; I don't think *every* use of AI is wrong on balance, but what bothered me was that their post dismissed a number of real ethical issues by saying essentially "I haven't seen calls for a boycott over this issue, so it's not a reason to stop use." That's an extremely socially conformist version of ethics that doesn't sit well with me. The discussion also ended up linking this post: https://chelseatroy.com/2024/08/28/does-ai-benefit-the-world/ which bothered me in a related way. In it, Troy describes classroom teaching techniques for introducing and helping students explore the ethics of AI, and they seem mostly great. They avoid prescribing any particular correct stance, which is important when teaching given the power relationship, and they help students understand the limitations of their perspectives regarding global impacts, which is great. But the overall conclusion of the post is that "nobody is qualified to really judge global impacts, so we should focus on ways to improve outcomes instead of trying to judge them." This bothers me because we actually do have a responsibility to make decisive ethical judgments despite limitations of our perspectives. If we never commit to any ethical judgment against a technology because we think our perspective is too limited to know the true impacts (which I'll concede it invariably is) then we'll have to accept every technology without objection, limiting ourselves to trying to improve their impacts without opposing them. Given who currently controls most of the resources that go into exploration for new technologies, this stance is too permissive. Perhaps if our objection to a technology was absolute and instantly effective, I'd buy the argument that objecting without a deep global view of the long-term risks is dangerous. As things stand, I think that objecting to the development/use of certain technologies in certain contexts is necessary, and although there's a lot of uncertainly, I expect strongly enough that the overall outcomes of objection will be positive that I think it's a good thing to do.
The deeper point here I guess is that this kind of "things are too complicated, let's have a nuanced discussion where we don't come to any conclusions because we see a lot of unknowns along with definite harms" really bothers me.

AI based Content Creation and Product Recommendation Applications in E-commerce: An Ethical overview
Aditi Madhusudan Jain, Ayush Jain
https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.17370

AI based Content Creation and Product Recommendation Applications in E-commerce: An Ethical overview
As e-commerce rapidly integrates artificial intelligence for content creation and product recommendations, these technologies offer significant benefits in personalization and efficiency. AI-driven systems automate product descriptions, generate dynamic advertisements, and deliver tailored recommendations based on consumer behavior, as seen in major platforms like Amazon and Shopify. However, the widespread use of AI in e-commerce raises crucial ethical challenges, particularly around data priv…