Lessons from Web 2.0 Failures for AI Technology

Lessons from Web 2.0 Failures for AI Technology

In recent discussions on the "Money Rethought" podcast, the topic of open ownership in AI technology was brought up. The argument was made that if we can contribute to AI development, we should also have the ability to own it. This concept aims to prevent any single entity from exerting undue control over AI development through a system of decentralized ownership and control. However, the main point of this argument is that the group as a whole should choose models that are advantageous to the group. The reasoning behind this is that if we have the power to make these choices, they will not harm us, as the fundamental currency and ownership of AI lies in the hands of the users.

The discussion then shifted to the incorporation of ethics in media content, particularly in the context of addressing sexual violence. It was pointed out that if the purpose of broadcasting is to find real solutions, it should have explained the structures and methods that lead to sexual violence, as well as the various ways in which these factors are prevalent in our reality. Hong Nam-hee, a research professor at Seoul City University's Urban Humanities Research Institute, noted that in order to create a term like "OTT journalism" for entertainment platforms, we must consider whether OTT fulfills the public value that journalism is supposed to deliver.

PDs (program directors) interpret Netflix as a medium that guarantees freedom of expression, but the problem lies in the excessive representation of sexual violence and explicit portrayals that cannot be shown on terrestrial television. Professor Hong raised the question of whether freely depicting sexual violence is truly an expression of freedom. This raises the issue of evaluating the public value and role of journalism in OTT platforms.

Combining these discussions, we can see a connection between the concepts of open ownership in AI technology and the ethical considerations in media content. Both highlight the importance of collective decision-making and the need for balance in the use and portrayal of technology. Here are three actionable insights that we can draw from these discussions:

1. Embrace decentralized ownership in AI: By allowing for a distributed ownership structure in AI technology, we can prevent any single entity from having too much control. This promotes fairness and ensures that the interests of the group are prioritized.

2. Consider the public value in media content: When creating and consuming media content, it is crucial to evaluate whether it fulfills the public value that it claims to deliver. This involves examining the ethical implications and potential harm that certain portrayals may have on society.

3. Foster responsible and inclusive decision-making: Encouraging collective decision-making processes that include diverse perspectives can help prevent the concentration of power and ensure that the choices made benefit the wider community. This applies not only to AI technology but also to media content creation and consumption.

In conclusion, the discussions on open ownership in AI technology and ethical considerations in media content provide valuable insights into the importance of collective decision-making and responsible use of technology. By embracing decentralized ownership, evaluating the public value in media content, and fostering inclusive decision-making processes, we can create a more balanced and ethical approach to the development and use of technology in our society.