These experts on AI are here to help us understand important things about AI.
Who are these generous, helpful experts that the CBC found, you ask?
"Dr. Muhammad Mamdani, vice-president of data science and advanced analytics at Unity Health Toronto", per LinkedIn a PharmD, who also serves in various AI-associated centres and institutes.
"(Jeff) Macpherson is a director and co-founder at Xagency.AI", a tech startup which does, uh, lots of stuff with AI (see their wild services page) that appears to have been announced on LinkedIn two months ago. The founders section lists other details apart from J.M.'s "over 7 years in the tech sector" which are interesting to read in light of J.M.'s own LinkedIn page.
Other people making points in this article:
C. L. Polk, award-winning author (of Witchmark).
"Illustrator Martin Deschatelets" whose employment prospects are dimming this year (and who knows a bunch of people in this situation), who per LinkedIn has worked on some nifty things.
"Ottawa economist Armine Yalnizyan", per LinkedIn a fellow at the Atkinson Foundation who used to work at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Could the CBC actually seriously not find anybody willing to discuss the actual technology and how it gets its results? This is archetypal hood-welded-shut sort of stuff.
Things I picked out, from article and round table (before the video stopped playing):
Does that Unity Health doctor go back later and check these emergency room intake predictions against actual cases appearing there?
Who is the "we" who have to adapt here?
AI is apparently "something that can tell you how many cows are in the world" (J.M.). Detecting a lack of results validation here again.
"At the end of the day that's what it's all for. The efficiency, the productivity, to put profit in all of our pockets", from J.M.
"You now have the opportunity to become a Prompt Engineer", from J.M. to the author and illustrator. (It's worth watching the video to listen to this person.)
Me about the article:
I'm feeling that same underwhelming "is this it" bewilderment again.
Me about the video:
Critical thinking and ethics and "how software products work in practice" classes for everybody in this industry please.
well, that's definitely one of the more novel ways I've heard of for spending a thursday
seriously, every minute of these hearings is fascinating. Just some of the most evil, greedy, slimy shit coming out of the mouths of suited up old white men who are trying every single misdirection possible to justify targeted marketing of tobacco
(~stream of consciousness commentary because spoon deficit:)
I've seen samples of it used in some media before
I haven't ever gotten to watch it myself
probably there's value in viewing and analyzing it in depth, because... a lot of other bad actors (involved in current-day bad) pull pretty much the "same sort of shit"
the legal methodology and wordwrangling and dodging may have evolved (<- speculation/guess)
but near certainly there's a continuum
If you feel like it :)
https://archive.org/details/tobacco_pxv27a00
I've lost my link to part 2 somehow...
I would say that the modern techniques are not as modern as I thought. I'm seeing plenty of similarities to crypto whataboutisms and ai charlatans claiming to care about the common person.
Not sure if this'll work - but here's a clip I posted on masto of a guy basically saying tobacco companies should be able to advertise because advertising is a fight for market share, not for increasing the market https://hci.social/@fasterandworse/111142173296522921
I might have some headspace this weekend, will try
otherwise, sometime in the nearwhen
People forget just how evil the tobacco companies were. A factor in why I don't smoke is that I just don't want people like this to earn money.
the hearing is just for regulations on their advertising practices too. One of the most common complaints from the lobbyists was "if you want to do this you should go all the way and outlaw smoking completely" as if a marlboro logo on an f1 car was keeping the industry alive.
the gall of selling a literally addictive product then complaining they wouldn't let you advertise enough. buddy, you don't need to advertise! nicotine is doing your work for you!
You can tell they really don’t want to address that part. They keep playing the “adults can make their own decisions” card.
The thing is these restrictions on advertising helped tobacco companies develop some of the more covert marketing techniques that are normal today.
cough user experience cough
Ooh, could you elaborate? I don't know anything about "user experience" marketing. I suppose the heavy regulation was teamed with a big media and cultural anti-tobacco push and as that faded the effectiveness of tobacco ad regulation also faded.
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has done some interesting reporting on tobacco/vape marketing today - for example whether influencer and digital marketing is being used to quietly push vape and tobacco ads on teenagers.
I tend to rave a bit about how I consider commercial user experience design/research to be marketing by another name. Particularly because the practitioners like to posture a role that has them caring about people's needs, wants, and well-being. As if they are an adversarial third-party keeping capitalist interests at bay. The unrealisticness of that posture has created a divide of types of UX designers. From junior/mids who are in a state of despair because they were told they would be exercising empathy in their job to seniors who are comfortable with their role in customer acquisition/retention.