Writers: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
-
@owlex @the_other_jon If it is incredibly complex, then shouldn't the technology be democratically controlled? Shouldn't all tech that has such a massive impact on our lives be democratically controlled? I believe it should.
I'm not sure we need to democratically control the technology itself, but we absolutely need to hold companies accountable for their methods. And since these models are built on OUR collective knowledge, we should demand open weight models and not be forbidden from using them.
The true impact of LLMs is still unfolding. If they turn out to be like the telephone or internet, then yes, strong regulatory control is needed. But if they're more like one compiler among many, maybe not.
What's clear: We need to close the legal loopholes that let companies profit parasitically from society without giving back. Democratic control means informed engagement, not avoidance.
-
Writers: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Artists: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Developers: Wheeeeeeeeee!
@jamesthomson Not all developers are flapping their arms with joy amid these developments.
For example, I stopped sharing my photos AND code, and not using AI to any capacity.
-
Writers: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Artists: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Developers: Wheeeeeeeeee!
@jamesthomson My theory is many (most?) software developers are enthusiastically jumping to the LLM bandwagon because many (most?) software devs just hate software development
-
@the_other_jon I'm aware of these problems, and many more (energy waste, OpenAI's exploitation of workers in Africa for manual training, copyright theft, data mining).
My question stands: Why is it wrong to use something critically while being aware of its problems? Especially when we're in the middle of such a massive technological shift that we should understand it. And when capitalism is forcing it into everything anyway, isn't informed usage better than ignorance?
And it's not even just about American companies anymore. We're in a global race for AI dominance now. This whole topic is incredibly complex.
I respect you for having these principles, but I think taking it out on a podcast, which reports about technology is a little weird. Though it's your decision
-
@jamesthomson the amount of podcasts I listen to is dwindling at this rate. The amount of “yeah but look Claude my best pal made an app for me so it’s all good” is making my blood boil
Related: I’m looking for suggestions to add more diversity to my tech podcasts rotation, something different than 3 middle age white US dudes with enough money to buy Porsches.
(still love you @atpfm) -
Writers: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Artists: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Developers: Wheeeeeeeeee!
@jamesthomson alse developers: Whaaaah!!! Where did my 100 dollar credits go in two days...
-
@jamesthomson honestly it seems best for coding...
@colo_lee @jamesthomson people that know jackshit about coding would say that...
-
@tantramar @jamesthomson @amyinorbit “actually scolded listeners who disagree with them, while others have made it clear that we’re old, clueless technophobes…”
Basically doing what those in the US government are doing: instead of addressing criticism, distract and avoid addressing critiques or questions by attacking or bringing irrelevant things into a conversation.
@CStamp @tantramar @jamesthomson @amyinorbit The last Corecursive episode was strange. He basically described how he's overworking himself managing coding assistants, but he's excited on how much code he's generating. At least he's not talking down on people not using AI. I personally want to be a programmer, not a manager. It feels like all these people didn't really like programming?
-
@jamesthomson
I would be interested in training a model based on my own code. I spend a decent amount of time looking through my own code to find something I know I’ve done before.@estranged @jamesthomson So you want better semantic search. That I also want.
-
Writers: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Artists: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Developers: Wheeeeeeeeee!
@jamesthomson Every time I see dumbasses on LinkedIn talking about AI as if it's a (superior) substitute for actually developing skill and experience, I feel more like I tried to get into development again at the exact wrong point in time.
The ethics or longterm viability of it all is never even on the table. Just FOMO and delusions all the way.
-
Writers: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Artists: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Developers: Wheeeeeeeeee!
@jamesthomson
I suspect that these developers are the same ones who were cut'n'pasting their code from stackoverflow before.I know I personally wouldn't want to leave the fun part to AI.
-
@lorimolson @jamesthomson Came here to say the same. Developers were also among those whose content was slurped up by big tech to feed their copyright laundering apparatus.
@NfNitLoop @lorimolson @jamesthomson
Feels important to point out that, unlike artists and writers, programmers that speak negatively about AI stand a very real chance of getting passed over for jobs and promotions for being 'luddites'. Literally had the CTO soliciting 'AI Success Stories' from staff a couple weeks ago.
-
Writers: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Artists: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Developers: Wheeeeeeeeee!
@jamesthomson It is bizarre to watch the overpaid Silicon Valley developer class enthusiastically abolish itself
-
@the_other_jon @jamesthomson I was confused about this change as well. But they use Apple products, while being sceptical about the company. What’s wrong about using ai as a useful tool, while knowing its problems?
@owlex
What's wrong about driving (ICE) cars? What's wrong about flying? What's bad about cruise ships?
Such great tools to get from a to b. -
@the_other_jon I'm aware of these problems, and many more (energy waste, OpenAI's exploitation of workers in Africa for manual training, copyright theft, data mining).
My question stands: Why is it wrong to use something critically while being aware of its problems? Especially when we're in the middle of such a massive technological shift that we should understand it. And when capitalism is forcing it into everything anyway, isn't informed usage better than ignorance?
And it's not even just about American companies anymore. We're in a global race for AI dominance now. This whole topic is incredibly complex.
I respect you for having these principles, but I think taking it out on a podcast, which reports about technology is a little weird. Though it's your decision
I follow you on the informed vs ignorance argument.
But, given that you list many of the ethical reasons against AI, there is little "informed use" that will also stand up to the ethical razor.
The Luddites were not ignorant. They were the technically able, who knew how to operate the machines, but fought against using them BECAUSE they understood them.
In my work I use deterministic scientific models, but I work with machine learning models as well. And all my colleagues (who are real experts in how neural networks work) are opposed to generative AI.
-
Related: I’m looking for suggestions to add more diversity to my tech podcasts rotation, something different than 3 middle age white US dudes with enough money to buy Porsches.
(still love you @atpfm)@fabienmarry @amyinorbit @jamesthomson It has always mind boggling to me how they mock Casey for being ‚frugal‘ and how it’s ‚funny‘ that Marco has some form of a money spending disorder.
-
Writers: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Artists: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
Developers: Wheeeeeeeeee!
@jamesthomson @stroughtonsmith it’s annoying. The culture is such that any AI criticism gets you labeled a hater and you get told to just accept everything.
-
@jamesthomson
I suspect that these developers are the same ones who were cut'n'pasting their code from stackoverflow before.I know I personally wouldn't want to leave the fun part to AI.
@leeloo @jamesthomson Yeah, there are developers who are going wheeeeeeeeeee but most that I know are just as disgusted by it as the other creative folks.
-
@fabienmarry @amyinorbit @jamesthomson It has always mind boggling to me how they mock Casey for being ‚frugal‘ and how it’s ‚funny‘ that Marco has some form of a money spending disorder.
@softmaus It's all relative isn't it… Frugal means thinking of replacing a top of the line laptop because it's 2 year old… while the other host buys a restaurant. I still find that interesting, but less and less relatable.
-
@owlex @the_other_jon If it is incredibly complex, then shouldn't the technology be democratically controlled? Shouldn't all tech that has such a massive impact on our lives be democratically controlled? I believe it should.
@airisdamon @owlex @the_other_jon It's not gonna fly. Apple doesn't release their source code. People still pay them money for some reason. Knowing what the code does is an infinitely easier step (and a prerequisite to) controlling what code does via legislation. It doesn't matter what 'society should do'. Society will keep paying Apple. Apple will keep paying government to make sure it's never compelled to reveal what its code does to its users.
