Lode Lauwaert
@LodeLauwaert
Followers
2K
Following
4K
Media
78
Statuses
1K
Professor Philosophy of Technology - Chair Ethics and AI - KU Leuven
Gent, België
Joined July 2016
Het manuscript is af, het boek ligt in oktober in de winkel. Wij, robots. Een filosofische blik op technologie en artificiële intelligentie
8
4
75
RT @mboudry: Academici schrijven talloze doctoraten over de kwalen van ongelijkheid. "Hoeveel doctoraten kent u over de stelling dat ongeli….
0
46
0
RT @Bart_DeWever: Na 22 jaar van dwaling werd deze voormiddag in commissie, in tweede lezing, de afschaffing van de kernuitstap gestemd. Di….
0
140
0
RT @tobyordoxford: When I posted this thread about how o3's extreme costs make it less impressive than it first appears, many people told m….
0
33
0
RT @DanHendrycks: Superintelligence is destabilizing. If China were on the cusp of building it first, Russia or the US would not sit idly….
0
136
0
RT @tegmark: Google DeepMind CEO @demishassabis says it’s “insane” to say there’s nothing to worry about with AI:
0
159
0
Maybe this paper is interesting for people in your network: @SvenNyholm @MCoeckelbergh @HannesCools.
0
0
2
Second, laws presuppose a (big) problem. We show that the threat of (automated) disinformation is greatly exaggerated. Of course, disinformation is undesirable, but the problem is (perhaps) not as big as we often tend to believe.
1
0
0
of political discussion on social media. This is because information that an account spreading or creating political information is a chatbot is itself politically relevant information, and people VERY politically biased - they reason poorly about such information. 3).
2
0
0
💥 In the paper we problematize those laws based two pieces of evidence from the (social) sciences. 💥 First, laws must be (or promise to be) effective. However, requiring the disclosure of the automated nature of chatbots is unlikely to succeed in improving the quality 2).
1
0
0
💥 Very excited to share this new publication . 💥 Scholars and policy-makers have raised concerns about the impact of chatbots on the spread of disinformation. We should have laws that require that artificially generated and disseminated content should be labeled as such. 1)
1
2
4
RT @GeertNoels: Wij zijn wellicht het enige land ter wereld waar "de sterkste schouders belasten" een aparte post is in een regeerakkoord e….
0
193
0
RT @wduyck: Het is bon ton om onze welvaart los te koppelen van welzijn, zoals Purnelle hier doet. Schulden? Slechte leerprestaties? Als we….
0
44
0
RT @PLoobuyck: Voor wie kiest voor nuance, openheid en bruggen bouwen. Voor wie polarisering wil overstijgen en zoekt naar een meer inclusi….
0
8
0
RT @wduyck: Als elke computerwerker elke werkdag, 10 keer 3 seconden verliest met cookie pop ups, en 50 miljoen mensen doen dat in de EU,….
0
83
0
New very relevant and interesting paper by @bchomanski . Why we should have less factcheckers and rely more on prediction markets.
I have a new open access paper in Episteme where I argue that fact checking should be replaced by a crowd sourced system based on prediction markets, as a potentially superior way of fighting #misinformation (link in comment).
0
0
3