Not modest enough.
A Modest AI proposal would be to eat the shills who are dishonestly promoting it.
This is capitalism. If you’re not exploiting an existing resource you’re not doing it right.
Journalists who join the programs (and they should be allowed to join multiple programs from multiple companies) agree to publish new, well-written articles on a regular basis, in exchange for some level of financial support. It should be abundantly clear that the AI companies have no say over the type of journalism being done, nor do they have any say in editorial beyond the ability to review the quality of the writing to make sure it’s actually useful in training new systems.
- Who gets to decide who is a “journalist”
- Do you want well written but obviously “wrong” information to be supported? To give an extreme example, David Icke writes pretty well, he’s just wrong. Personally I don’t have an issue with a few “swivel eyed loons” being supported by something like this, but a lot of people will, and you would need some way to stop them becoming the majority.
- The opposite of that is how you stop the AI companies simply claiming reporting they don’t like is poorly written
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/shorts/cfzRdayFXXg?si=H0aswRHH6N4zZRyV
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.