Writers: Generative AI models were built on our stolen works, are deeply unethical, and risk devaluing our entire profession.
-
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.
-
@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
@owlex You haven’t asked me, but your questions appear to me to be in such good faith that I’ll try to provide a response. Specifically to:
> Why is it wrong to use something critically while being aware of its problems? […] And when capitalism is forcing it into everything anyway, isn't informed usage better than ignorance?
I don’t think your description fits the current state of ATP. Marco in particular¹ has become a bit of a mouthpiece for LLMs. He’s now actively spouting the fear mongering of “use it or you’re going to be left behind” and in general is profoundly focused on what the technology does *for him* while summarily ignoring the negative impact to others and society in general.
Informed usage does not mean advocacy. What ATP is doing now is closer to the latter than the former. It has much praise, little criticism.
¹ Whom I agree with and publicly applaud on pretty much every Tim Cook criticism.
-
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.
@owlex @airisdamon @the_other_jon
One criticism on your choice of words: large language models are not built on knowledge, but on data.
I think that is a very crucial distinction to keep in perspective what the tools can and cannot do.
-
@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.
@fabienmarry Same. In the meantime, I manage to cut them some slack by remembering that consumerism still is a commonly accepted virtue in the US.
-
@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
@owlex @the_other_jon An ethical position on something often requires sacrifice. We aren’t doing this to be mean to the podcast. We are doing it to attempt to influence the industry in another direction.
The complexity of the situation doesn’t really have anything directly to do with what is ethical. It only has to do with how hard it is to see it. Are you arguing that the complexity makes it ok or that it is hard for you to see? Some of us can see the harm and are trying our best to make it visible.
Those who provide the counterpoint don’t say anything about whether the harm will stop or somehow be mitigated really — they mostly just say, “Don’t be left behind.” Does that sound like a rational actor or an addict?
My belief: it is absolutely wrong to feed this technological vampire that threatens to erase humanity. Don’t become a thrall. It doesn’t end well for them.
-
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 of us.
-
@jamesthomson I’ve been struggling with this cognitive dissonance for years.
I'm torn whether this is cognitive dissonance or a result of an industry containing a significant fraction of people who apparently hate the field they work in
CC: @jamesthomson@mastodon.social
-
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!
There are a few out there. But most deleveopers are using it because if they don't, they lose their job.
-
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 wonder if that’s because for writers, the writing is the work. For artists, the art is the work. For many developers, the code is not the work - the result of the code is. My customers don’t look at, or even care about my code. They care about its outcomes.
For some developers this is harder, who saw coding as a craft in itself. Like woodworking. But many purchasers of beautiful furniture also just want it to hold up their drink.
-
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's kinda like Stackoverflow on Demand.
-
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 Yeah I don't think so. Some are, a tiny minority are bragging about supposedly being 10x more productive but not showing anything of value, but literally every dev I'm seeing is:
1. Complaining about AI being everywhere and being forced to use it
2. Complaining about slop bug reports
3. Worried about layoffs that will also destroy the company that's laying them off, making a bad economy even worse.The minority that's cheering for it are a minority that happens to be loud, but it's the same people, and many of them aren't devs to begin with, as evidenced by their LinkedIn style of writing.
