BS Summary: This video contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Burden of Proof, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 32.6% saturation with 296 hits. Analysis detected 2,211 faulty-reasoning hits from 909 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.7% and a BS Rank of 14% (14,475 of 16,813 videos). This video is better (less manipulative) than 86.10% of the video peer group.
B News contributor, Google tech policy fellow Mike Muse is here for more.
Hi Mike.
So Anthropics co-founder was actually in the audience for the the Pope's comments.
He also echoed the Pope's sentiments here.
How are other AI companies and experts reacting to this?
>> What Ola said was the co-founder of Anthropic is really in relationship to what Pope Leo mentioned.
Pope Leo really leaned into the dignity of the worker and really talking about fair wage and making sure that humans are treated properly.
Uh he talked about the young person who is collecting the data and doing content moderation.
But he also too talked about the young person who is mining the essential minerals that are needed to power the compute.
Just in contrast also the co-founder Anthropic Ola he discussed the idea of how to address the global poor and he said that entities and institutions such as the Vatican are important to their work.
It's important to hold them accountable outside of the incentives that are not just about economic based and growthbased.
So there is a welcoming of Silicon Valley of outsiders who will hold them accountable and keep them morally sound.
The Pope says it's not enough to ask whether AI is used for good, but also about how it's designed.
Can tech companies design AI systems to either be good or bad?
>> That is what Ola said in his response is that often times what they're designing is in contrast to oftentimes what the core aspect of is for humanity and for the good of humanity. when they are in the race that we see right now with the major tech companies to be first in with the products.
You have open AI, you have Anthropic, you have Google Gemini.
What they're see what he was suggesting is that the incentives to win the race may go outside the boundaries of what is best for humanity.
And so what he's saying is that oftentimes they're designing systems and specifically when they look inside the mysteriousness of the systems to what exactly what Ola said oftentimes shocks them and then that's what is important for entities like religious scholars people in the humanities to push back on them to make sure they stay within the boundaries and that they are not blinded by the incentives to win by incentives for economic gains and by the incentives to get their products out first.
Poplio is calling for stronger regulation.
He's warning that the power around all of this is concentrated in too few a few number of people, a few powerful companies and their leaders.
How do you make a more democratic or inclusive setup for all of this?
>> I like that Pope Leo is taking the lead and I often talk about that we need humanities.
We often are so focused on getting individuals to major in STEMbased careers in order to advance the future.
But with that, we need those who are in humanities.
We need religious scholars.
We need human rights activists to be no not only at the table to encourage conversations, but we actually need them at the design table.
And I think the more that leaders like Pope Leo take this position, it can encourage and open up seats at the design tables inside these companies in order to create the products.
So then when we do get into this idea of the mysteries inside the data sets that individuals at the design level in order to push back on questions and say, "Hold up, this could cause harm to humanity.
We might want to think about how do we redesign it?
we might want to pull from a different data set or we might want to ask the machine to ask a different question in order to get a different output.
But you can't have those type of questions if you don't have people at the design phase.
And so individuals like the pope and entities like the Vatican are important to bring a seat at the table for that.
>> How much support is there for changes like that?
>> There's an openness uh to it, right?
But I think it takes this conversation to have like we're having right now to get people to go outside their biases, right?
Like you don't know what you don't know, right?
And so as researchers and data scientists, if their whole idea is collect the data sets, get the right data to get the right outcome that we need to meet the bottom line of this quarter or to compete with our competitor who just released a similar product.
So we got to get out there first.
They're tunnel vision.
And so there is implicit biases that researchers and data scientists have which is why it's important that people from the outside disrupt those biases and come to the table in order to create collaboration.
But it's important to note that the AI train has left the station and so there is no going back, there is no stopping, there is no pausing, but it's a matter of how do we get on the train while it's moving and then how do we make it better ride for everyone who is on the train.
>> All right, Mike Muse, thank you.
Thank you.
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.