Her academy is very, very popular among Tech DPOs and lawyers (data protection officers). I am not saying she isn’t a typical Linkedin influencer.
But her posting about something, in the data protection and corp AI Governance [1]world (in terms of influence), is akin to us seeing Zvi Mowshowitz post about something. Does this make sense?
DPOs are mostly also doing AI Governance in the tech and tech adjacent industry now. I should do a post about this because it may be part of the problem soon.
I’m not in law, but it seems more like an online course trying to be sold to me than a real conference. There is a long list of company logos, a bunch of credits and certifications promised, and a large blob of customer testimonials.
I clicked the link. I usually don’t read LinkedIn, but I think the things that rub you (and me) the wrong way are simply how the LinkedIn power users communicate normally. Their bubble is not ours.
Seems to me that Luiza Jarovsky made a big step outside the Overton window (and a few replies called her out on that), which is as much as we could reasonably hope for. Mentioning the book as “important, although I disagree with the framing” is a huge improvement over the “low-status shit, don’t touch that” current status.
Thank you! You’ve managed to explain exactly what I thought when I saw this link. And re the LinkedIn comment—I’m actually surprised that people are surprised. I know people who post very high quality articles there, but mostly it’s become slop land. The pattern I’m noticing is: LinkedIn writers who value quality slowly transitioning to Substack, and those in their audiences that want to think moving with them.
It’s not a conference, it’s an online course and it’s one of the most popular among privacy professionals. The most popular being those offered by IAPP (International Association of Privacy Professionals). She’s legitimately that well regarded. I’d love to know where the disconnect is for you?
Although ironically, I was talking to my boyfriend about how people in law or compliance would have the same reaction (“what? This guy is important?”) if I said so about Zvi and just linked his Substack XD. I guess different impressions in different communities.
She does seem like a LinkedIn grifter, but if she’s a popular LinkedIn grifter I guess this could mean something.
I’m not sure if important people at Fortune 500s are reading LinkedIn grifter newsletters. Or if Fortune 500s that aren’t Alphabet or Nvidia are actually relevant for AI.
Maybe Luisa Jarovsky’s recommendation is primarily important as an indicator that “normies” (who can vote, etc.) are aware of IABIED.
This is the 29th book Luisa has recommended for her “AI book club,” so possibly she just needed something to recommend and IABIED is a recent AI book with a lot of marketing around it. And even in her recommendation, she mentions that she “disagrees with catastrophic framings of AI risk.”
Although, in general, I disagree with catastrophic framings of AI risk (which have been exploited by AI CEOs to increase interest in their products, as I recently wrote in my newsletter), the AI safety debate is an important one, and it concerns all of us.
There are differing opinions on the current path of AI development and its possible futures. There are also various gray zones and unanswered questions on possible ways to mitigate risk and avoid harm.
Yudkowsky has been researching AI alignment for over 20 years, and together with Soares, he has built a strong argument for why AI safety concerns are urgent and why action is needed now. Whether you agree with their tone or not, their book is worth reading.
She is? She just seems like a standard LinkedIn grifter.
Perhaps this is a better reference point: https://academy.aitechprivacy.com/ai-governance-training
Her academy is very, very popular among Tech DPOs and lawyers (data protection officers). I am not saying she isn’t a typical Linkedin influencer.
But her posting about something, in the data protection and corp AI Governance [1]world (in terms of influence), is akin to us seeing Zvi Mowshowitz post about something. Does this make sense?
DPOs are mostly also doing AI Governance in the tech and tech adjacent industry now. I should do a post about this because it may be part of the problem soon.
I’m not in law, but it seems more like an online course trying to be sold to me than a real conference. There is a long list of company logos, a bunch of credits and certifications promised, and a large blob of customer testimonials.
Did some quick googling and an actual conference would look like this. https://www.lsuite.co/techgc
I’m surprised this comment has so many upvotes. Did anyone actually click the link?
I clicked the link. I usually don’t read LinkedIn, but I think the things that rub you (and me) the wrong way are simply how the LinkedIn power users communicate normally. Their bubble is not ours.
Seems to me that Luiza Jarovsky made a big step outside the Overton window (and a few replies called her out on that), which is as much as we could reasonably hope for. Mentioning the book as “important, although I disagree with the framing” is a huge improvement over the “low-status shit, don’t touch that” current status.
Thank you! You’ve managed to explain exactly what I thought when I saw this link. And re the LinkedIn comment—I’m actually surprised that people are surprised. I know people who post very high quality articles there, but mostly it’s become slop land. The pattern I’m noticing is: LinkedIn writers who value quality slowly transitioning to Substack, and those in their audiences that want to think moving with them.
It’s not a conference, it’s an online course and it’s one of the most popular among privacy professionals. The most popular being those offered by IAPP (International Association of Privacy Professionals). She’s legitimately that well regarded. I’d love to know where the disconnect is for you?
Although ironically, I was talking to my boyfriend about how people in law or compliance would have the same reaction (“what? This guy is important?”) if I said so about Zvi and just linked his Substack XD. I guess different impressions in different communities.
She does seem like a LinkedIn grifter, but if she’s a popular LinkedIn grifter I guess this could mean something.
I’m not sure if important people at Fortune 500s are reading LinkedIn grifter newsletters. Or if Fortune 500s that aren’t Alphabet or Nvidia are actually relevant for AI.
Maybe Luisa Jarovsky’s recommendation is primarily important as an indicator that “normies” (who can vote, etc.) are aware of IABIED.
This is the 29th book Luisa has recommended for her “AI book club,” so possibly she just needed something to recommend and IABIED is a recent AI book with a lot of marketing around it. And even in her recommendation, she mentions that she “disagrees with catastrophic framings of AI risk.”
that’s not very consistent with my understanding of the words “endorsed IABIED” from OP
This is what she says: