irish_link@lemmy.world 11 months ago
So why not Amazon for their shopping system in stores?
I think they’re pretty different cases.
Amazon’s one was essentially a side project for them, likely fully funded in-house.
In this case, it was their entire product. They received funding from investors purely for the AI functionality that didn’t actually exist or work. They spent all the investor money and had essentially nothing to show for it.
Yeah, investing in a company is investing in the whole company and all of its projects. Lies about your company are only fraud when the lies rise to the level of making a material difference to how a typical investor would value that company. If the lies are about a very minor percentage of revenue or profit, then it’s not gonna rise to the level of securities fraud.
DandomRude@lemmy.world 11 months ago
A perfectly legitimate question, especially since this misleading approach is precisely why Amazon’s Mechanical Turk is called that.
The Mechanical Turk, also known as the Automaton Chess Player, was a fraudulent chess-playing machine built by Wolfgang von Kempelen in 1770. It appeared to play chess autonomously but was actually operated by a skilled human chess player hidden inside. (Source)
I don’t know the answer, but I assume that it probably has something to do with money and power…
notthebees@reddthat.com 11 months ago
I don’t think it’s exactly the same. If I used MT to label data for AI/ML, that would be one thing. If I used MT to complete tasks and calling their effort AI, that would be fraud.
DandomRude@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Yes, that’s probably true. I just find it funny that Amazon named this line of business after a fraudulent device. For some of the things you can do with it, it’s probably quite the fitting name.