I feel like there may or may not be a very specific narrative being pushed here. One that I don't think I am smart enough or as informed about to make any big statements here. It's just a hunch though.

In order to fight back against whatever bad things people can do with this new technology, we shall use that exact technology to put a stop to them. Or at least try to put a stop to them. This moderation stuff can be a pain, if social media moderation is anything to go by.

It's essentially a pandora's box. Once it has been opened, the actions of it can never be undone.

What about using AI for hate speech and misinformation? Ever heard of that one?

As with all things in life. There is good and there is bad. This is something touched upon earlier in the annotations, and within class discussions too. Things are not truly black and white. There is a hint of nuance in all things. If we do not take that into consideration than we are not going to really get anywhere beyond arguing extremes to one another

Maybe I'm too tired to think straight, but I do not see how this has anything to do with the topic at hand. I think maybe I am losing it.

What I believe is being said here is that inequality is not a result of technology, but rather a refusal to adopt said technology will be what creates the inequality. An argument over free will vs determinism.

If corporations attempt to use AI to take over our jobs, in many cases they will outright try. We saw hints of this during last years WGA strikes, which had issues towards generative AI as one of the key points in the strikes happening at all. It feels idealistic to not expect big million billion dollar companies to not act in self interest.

Something about the tone here gets me but I do not know what it is. It feels incredibly snarky to me.

The argument here is that while jobs may be taken by machines, there will be new jobs created to care for these machines as a result. This is certainly a fair point to make. With there being example of this in the past. But these new jobs that come out of this will not be the same kind of jobs the machines took. There will be new skillsets required and there will be new hurdles to tackle. It may not lead to mass unemployment, but it may lead to significant road bumps along the way.

Not to be the exact kind of person this is referring to, but to return to the discussion on AI in creative spaces, we can see signs of this happening. I use the Coca-Cola AI ad as an example earlier, but I've seen a handful of others in the past too. Usually from smaller companies or things that look like they may just be scams. But one example I can vividly remember from recent was this one for Tyson chicken nuggets I saw on Instagram which looked exactly like it was made with AI. I've seen people try to push AI as a new cost effective way to generate things without needing to have people do it instead. There is an argument to be made that AI is taking jobs. Even if not to the level of everyone is out of a job and we all die and are homeless, there is something happening here. I do not think it can be ignored

I don't know. Maybe I'm set in my own ways of leaning more towards the "AI bad" than the "AI good," but I have a hard time accepting the thought process of "just let it exist and do not worry about it. Because there are concerns to be had, and we should be considering them, at least to some extent.

What qualifies exactly as "good" and "bad" AI speech? Obviously hate speech falls under the bad, but once you move past that obvious subject it becomes increasingly ambiguous. Relying less of objective information and more on personal opinion and beliefs. Creating internal conflicts amongst regulators and lawmakers.

Anytime something is set in stone to prevent something from happening. There will always be pushing for more and more limitations to be placed upon it. The argument being presented here is that this is the current path AI is going down. With people wanting to restrict AI's usage, it'll bring about people who want to continue pushing restrictions on it until there is no way for it to be used anymore.

I don't know how I feel about brushing off these concerns just like that. Obviously people will blow these issues out of the water, again returning to the moral panic discussions from before. But that doesn't mean there is nothing of substance here. That there isn't anything potentially concerning. I don't think something such as hate speech can be shrugged off like that.

That's a bit of a mouthful if you ask me.

Hate speech and misinformation in regards to AI are certainly concerns to be had. I don't think it can be completely dismissed. Especially so when you consider we've already seen attempts at AI for malpractice.

People getting swept up in moral panic tendencies make it hard for potential cracks in the foundation to show. I imagine this is what causes people to not see any potential flaws with the arguments of those shooting down AI in its entirety.

Once again we can tie things back to the moral panic narratives discussed earlier. People taking potentially genuine concerns about AI and its consequences and running wild with it and having is spreading it like wildfire. Putting fear in one's mind is an easy way to get their attention

Nor can they prove it will happen. Arguments such as this get people nowhere.

I think the fact we control it brings about these concerns much more than AI becoming evil in a way similar to that described above in the article. Humans are imperfect creatures. We make mistakes and are prone to bias in our actions. AI as a result will be built on our actions, including the mistakes and biases we have. It can already be observed in some ways. The reading "The Unseen Black Faces of AI Algorithms" we did for class discusses this in a rather direct fashion. Due to the algorithms we create for facial recognition being built on mainly white faces, it struggles to pick up faces of darker skinned individuals due to the lack of data the algorithms were provided in regard to differing races.

No. Probably not. if it does then it'll be the fault of humans using it in poorly thought out ways that lead to horrible consequences for all involved. But on it's own it probably won't do anything. We don't have machines with sentience like that.

I can definitely see the correlation between this and the current AI discussion. How those who see genuine good in these creations will tend to be outshined by those who view it in a negative way. Only for those who hold powerful positions to step in and continue to sway the conversation in their favor. I think that's what is being got at here, at least.

Often people who advocate for "new thing" tend to do so in a way that acts as if it can do no harm and it is the greatest thing to ever exist in the history of ever. I think that may be in part why the "bootleggers win" mindset held by the article can ring true. They look at it through an "it's good no exceptions" mindset, which is much harder to maintain than a "it's bad no exceptions" mindset.

It is always important to look at both sides of the coin when looking at any complicated subject. We do not live in a world that is merely black and white. A level of nuance is important to get anywhere in life. It kind of reminds me of discussions in class we had about activism when we read that section in Digital Keywords. While activism in the digital age has lead to many great outcomes, it has had the consequence of leading to means that have little to no effect (in some cases it can even be a detriment...). This doesn't undermine the good that comes from it though, it just means it's complicated. Just like AI. It's kind of really complicated.

Pessimists Archive is a fun read. Also a funny one too.

Everything to ever be made is in some way controversial when it is new. It goes back to as early as the creation of writing itself. This is something that cannot be denied. I've personally seen a lot of talk about moral panics, especially since coming to Xavier. We talked about it in another class I had (that being COMM-247 Understanding New Media), but we also discussed briefly in this class too. I particularly remember it coming up when we discussed social media usage and its relations to mental health. The reading we did about a study going over the impacts alongside the narrative made out of it is one that sticks out to me the most. It's definitely important to tackle AI discussions with a similar mindset. It's something I could probably personally be better about too. The AI panic to someone like me is no different than that social media panic to someone who is older than I.

Personally I would think ending war in its entirety would be a better outcome than minimizing casualties but that's just me.

Like mentioned earlier, I think it greatly depends on the context. if it is used as a tool to help creatives, then I agree! If it's being used as a replacement for said creatives, then no. I don't think that's even up for debate given how AI generated images, music, writing, etc. look as it currently stands. AI is only able to recreate what it is given. It could never create something original in the way a human could.

Allowing for technology to increase the rate at which we're able to learn and understand the world we live in is undoubtedly a good thing I would imagine. Especially given if it were fed the correct information, which given the context I would only imagine it would be provided with, it would likely lead to outcomes with minimal errors or incorrect garbage data. Which is an issue often seen in AI output. I agree with this assessment.

The idea of everyone having something that allows for them to have instance access to any and all information to cite whenever they needed is an idea that sounds too god to be true. Like it's something that cannot be achieved. The internet, an already existing resource containing nearly all archived information is still not accessible to a third of the planet's population. How would we be able to let something such as this happen if we already don't have everyone on one of the most important resources in the modern day?

Was a little concerned my computer would grow legs and kill me. Glad to know this isn't the case.

Of all the places people are trying to incorporate AI into media, it's creative works that has me the most concerned. While it certainly can be useful for automating specific elements of creative work that would otherwise be seen as busywork, usually in the form of small, minute edits/tweaks, there is an alarming amount of those out there trying to use AI to outright replace human made work, which inevitably means a loss of job opportunities for those who do creative works. This actually can already be observed with how some major corporations are using AI generated content for advertisements.

I understand that moral panics are a thing, and that they lead to severe overreactions towards anything new. Treating it as if it is a blight upon humanity. But doesn't think almost feel like exactly that, just on the opposite side? There is 100% good that can come from AI, we just need to make sure to use correctly, and not for other unethical purposes, but to act like this is THE SAVIOR THAT WILL BRING US ALL HOPE is a little much.

Very bold wording, but it's one I can completely understand. Makes you wonder if there's even any good guys in this story?

Lots of basic (and not so basic) things missing. Makes you wonder if this is even worth it?

That's a basic feature missing!

Easy to opt-in, not so easy to opt-out

Considering its relationship to Instagram, an app with a similarly mobile focused design philosophy, this isn't too surprising.

Well that's a relief!

Outcry can imply the users aren't satisfied with the provided experience given.

They want to be Twitter, but they aren't able to match it.

Maybe this could change as time goes on?

Makes the numbers feel less impressive when contextualized that one

Use of "clone" is notable. Implies it's nothing more than an imitation. It should be looked down on.

Despite the fast rise in popularity, Threads might not be able to provide the same satisfactory experience provided by Twitter.

Those are some very big names.

An interesting argument to make about what it needs to succeed. Most others pointed to keeping engagement. Here it points to needing the right people.

Meta has lost the trust of a lot of its users. But the same could be said about Twitter. Who here would be able to come out on top?

I saw another article talking about this, but not going as in depth on the subject. I wonder why some sites choose to omit this planned feature? Is it just something they see as not important?

Possible issues for Meta to address with their app?

wait what

Easy integration into a new service means a higher willingness to convert over.

oh...

Paints Threads as a more welcoming app to third party app developers than Twitter is. Allows people more options that forcing them into a single one.

Sounds like an option that could be seen as an advantage Twitter has over Threads.

It's not 100% identical... but it's pretty damn similar.

Metaphor for describing a topic or concept that is currently in people's minds. Topical discussion.

Twitter lacked a true competitor. One that is actually able to test its spot for popularity. Threads is being painted as an exception and not the rule.

It's out of left field and seems antithetical to what Twitter is. That's the idea I'm gathering here.

Emphasis on criticism of Twitter's current landscape to boost the potential in Threads as a social app to take its place.

It drives in a point that it is meant to be like Twitter and is trying to be Twitter

Much less charged than the other terminology used to describe the app. Terminology that also is used in the headline, possibly for gaining attention.

A sizeable userbase that can easily be transferred over to the new app.

More mentions of Twitter's inability to keep up a standard following Musk's acquisition

Uncertainty in Threads ability to succeed. This one is particularly interesting, as given when this article was written, information surrounding the apps userbase wasn't concrete

Many write about this as a key element. It shows the importance of features like this to people.

Threads is ahead of the curve. It has a chance at competing that many others outright lack.

Very strong language to use. Implies that these two apps are at war with each other.

An implication that it will eventually be available there. Some articles have painted a different picture

Instagram stories comes to mind. Was a very clear imitation of the (at the time) incredibly popular Snapchat.

Make Threads easy and accessible to all. Have it be constant in our lives

Interesting to note. Instagram's notes feature has since been implemented into the app.

Not too far off from when Elon Musk's Twitter purchase was finalized

Suggests this might have happened regardless of ownership.

A likely allusion to the current state of Twitter.

Interesting. This potentially could suggest Threads as an idea that spans long before Elon Musk's Twitter purchase

Threads is lacking compared to Twitter

Pointing out the similarities between the two apps

That's a lot of people

Threads is different from the others.

Implication of a shaky road since Musk's Twitter purchase

Mentions the existence of a preexisting rivalry between Zuckerberg and Musk.

Twitter killer mention

Get their way? Interesting wording choice.

Very interesting. haven't seen much talk about this. Which is something I've said a lot here but it's true!

More comparisons to Twitter. They're making it seem rather incompetent in comparison to Threads here.

Important clarification being made here.

if Instagram is ok for people, then Threads should be too right? Are people just flaming this to spark controversy and fear?

A push is being made to get people on Threads. I've seen mentions of celebrities being on the app, but not the how or why they made it on there.

A point I haven't seen raised in other articles...

Credibility added to Threads' chances of surpassing its competitors.

Interesting. Haven't seen this pointed out by other sources. I wonder what that's about?

Wow! People HATE Twitter huh?

Interesting note, especially when other articles have pointed at all the data Threads needs from its users.

Twitter's relationship to Threads is a constant in the discussion of the app. It's like it doesn't exist within its own merits.

Very noticeable growth in a short span of time. I find it interesting how many of these articles all list different milestones it passed in its first few days on the market.

Is Threads potentially lackluster in its current state (at the time it was released)? With many basic features missing, it might not be able to hold the attention of its rapidly increasing userbase.

It's all uncertain!

Emphasis is put on making sure it has the features needed in order to sustain itself

It's not impossible, but it just may be improbable?

I remember a few other similar Instagram spinoffs that eventually were dropped not long after. At one point they tried to rival YouTube with IGTV, but it was quickly forgotten about and its features were inserted into the main Instagram app.

It's not for certain going to rival Twitter, but it also isn't for sure going to fail.

Considering the EU's rules in relation to data collection, should we be concerned by the plans to not launch it there?

Suggestion doesn't mean outright confirmation.

CNN reported on this exact tweet, but they said it was without certainty that it was about Threads. Here there's some extra room for interpretation.

It sounds like Elon doesn't take this potential competition very seriously.

Does hiring former employees of a place to then make something similar to their previous work count as intellectual property theft?

Threads is happy! Twitter is not...

500 characters is much more room to work with than 280. Does this make Threads the better app?

Is Threads sustainable?

Do we know if that's truly the case? Not to come off as overly skeptical, but there is always the slightest chance something else caused it. Instagram's connections seem the most likely though, despite this.

Emphasis is put on the connection between Instagram and Threads. Should this be a concern to anyone? Does the Instagram connection make a differnce?

That's certainly not a good sign. Should we be trusting or using this platform at all?

Mentioning the current pitfalls with Twitter makes Threads seem awfully compelling in comparison...

Big names are coming to Threads. Using that information allows for it to be pushed as this huge new platform.

"DUDE EVERYONE IS USING IT! EVEN THESE FAMOUS PEOPLE!"

People are flocking to it FAST

It's new, so it's bound to be a little finicky now that there's a wider net of people using it beyond initial beta tests.

Rivals. Bitter enemies. They're constantly going at it 24/7

It's not a fully fledged application. .It doesn't have what it takes (yet?)

I think, just maybe, there might be some metaphor here about how Twitter vs Threads is a cage match in its own right.

Is it doomed from the start? Could this be what makes the difference?

A tall order they have for them.

More skepticism about if Twitter could be dethroned by Threads, but this time it's from Instagram's CEO himself.

Ease of access as the reason for Threads being a Twitter Killer

Combative response from Twitter. The idea that Twitter could never be killed is certainly an interesting one.

Is it theft to make an app that's derivative in nature?

Zuckerberg also throwing shade at Twitter.

Threads is winning the race

You mean to tell me it's not special? D:

Scary!

It's not everything it's made out to be...

It's similar to Twitter, so that means it's definitely going to fold it in.

More information on Twitter that supports potential idea of Threads being a Twitter Killer

Background on Twitter that supports potential idea of Threads being the Twitter Killer.

Could implies there's a chance it won't

This app is HUGE. This the next BIG THING

"Twitter Killer" narrative has a level of skepticism surrounding it.

Paints it as a direct competitor. Different from how Mark Zuckerberg of Meta talks about it.

Twitter is mentioned outright as manor element of the article

Does not in any way mention Twitter. Shocking!

Twitter is integral to the conversation. It never leaves

It's powerful?

Threads vs Twitter is the narrative here. The idea that these two social media sites/apps with similar designs behind them are to be pit against each other. Twitter has seen heavy criticism ever since Elon Musk took over, and it feels like Threads it being suggested as the replacement people may be looking for.

A comparison to Twitter gives off the implication that it's meant to rival or maybe even surpass the site. That certainly could happen, considering the level of growth it has had, but the comparison to Twitter isn't really important in that regard.

Wow!

With how high the numbers got in such a short period of time, this feels like it was a necessary statement that needed to be made. It also makes the app's rise seem impressive when considering how new it was at the time of writing (and still is now).

Meta itself also putting major focus on the number of users. Could maybe be seen as prideful in a way.

Further hammering in the rate at which the app as been growing.

Putting an emphasis on both the rate of the growth and comparing it to its competitors.

This is a rumor. It has not been confirmed by any Apple or any of its associates that there will be a partnership to bring AI technology to iOS version 18.

Speculation. Based on the influx in AI technology over the last year, and how many other major tech companies are pushing for it, it would make sense for Apple to take a stab at it. The idea of AI implementation could be game changing, but it isn't known for sure the extent of what would be added, if it is at all.

Usually, hitting means an attack or a strike. Here it signals the release of a product in a location it has yet to reach. Product release as an attack.

Another instance of companies/brands being characterized as if they were an individual.

Metaphor presenting companies/brands as people