3 ms·

At what point do we call behaviour like this bigotry? In the field of AI there are many issues to be debated and legal findings to be made. People have disagr

by Lerc 2y ago

At what point do we call behaviour like this bigotry? In the field of AI there are many issues to be debated and legal findings to be made. People have disagreements on a lot of even basic premises yet proponents on either side will state them as fact without providing an argument. I have seen people post messages on generative AI forums about how to handle the hate they receive. All too often people on those forums handle it by behaving like a 12 year old childishly retaliating. When it comes to products with AI features, it stands to reason that there will be a lot of new things and a lot of them will be useless. It's an interesting new technology that nobody knows exactly where it fits in. We only find that out by experimentation. My only concern with an optional feature like in iTerm2 is if it consumed significant resources when not used. Ie. Does it significantly contribute to bloat. If not then the objection is not to the feature itself but to the idea of the feature. That seems to be a step fraught with danger.

mikl 2y ago
> At what point do we call behaviour like this bigotry? When big tech stops being creepy. Companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Google, etc. have taught us to be constantly vigilant, if we want to have any sort of privacy. They’re always finding new creative ways to datamine us. No reason we’d trust OpenAI either.
- Lerc 2y ago
  I agree that there is an issue with large tech companies having undue influence over society, and that they frequently against the interests of their users. I would applaud regulation that mitigates these negative behaviours. I have never had a Facebook account because I did not agree with their user-is-the-product model. This is my personal choice. People usually only find this out I tell people I can't do the thing they want me to do because it is on Facebook. The usual response is surprise, followed by general acceptance. I do not see how this relates to AI though. AI is not a business, it is a technology. The antipathy seems to be directed at AI itself, not any particular company. I am all for criticism of company behaviour if it is well argued. I don't like the blanket "X is bad, everything X does is bad". Apart from being a non sequitur, I don't really accept the absoloute "X is bad" for any company. Companies are composed of individuals, those people have influences, agency, and beliefs. To say that they are uniformly bad is to say that every individual who works their is bad. By all means criticize bad behaviour of companies. Criticize the leadership that let it happen, and keep on doing so if they let it continue. Declaring the lot of them to be evil is not only counter productive, but taking the easy way out. The idea of defeating them is just some revolutionary fantasy and without any other means to modulate their behaviour you are just supporting the status quo. Absolutely, be constantly vigilant. Just remember to make a case for your point. An optional feature that you don't have to use does not seem like a good reason to hate a iTerm2. It would be like me declaring I am no longer going to use a web browser because it has the ability to view Facebook, I simply don't use that feature.
  - mikl 2y ago
    AI is a concept, but OpenAI is a business. And their bread and butter is acquiring more data to train their models.

by Lerc 2y ago

mikl 2y ago

> At what point do we call behaviour like this bigotry? When big tech stops being creepy. Companies like Microsoft, Facebook, Google, etc. have taught us to be constantly vigilant, if we want to have any sort of privacy. They’re always finding new creative ways to datamine us. No reason we’d trust OpenAI either.

Lerc 2y ago
I agree that there is an issue with large tech companies having undue influence over society, and that they frequently against the interests of their users. I would applaud regulation that mitigates these negative behaviours. I have never had a Facebook account because I did not agree with their user-is-the-product model. This is my personal choice. People usually only find this out I tell people I can't do the thing they want me to do because it is on Facebook. The usual response is surprise, followed by general acceptance. I do not see how this relates to AI though. AI is not a business, it is a technology. The antipathy seems to be directed at AI itself, not any particular company. I am all for criticism of company behaviour if it is well argued. I don't like the blanket "X is bad, everything X does is bad". Apart from being a non sequitur, I don't really accept the absoloute "X is bad" for any company. Companies are composed of individuals, those people have influences, agency, and beliefs. To say that they are uniformly bad is to say that every individual who works their is bad. By all means criticize bad behaviour of companies. Criticize the leadership that let it happen, and keep on doing so if they let it continue. Declaring the lot of them to be evil is not only counter productive, but taking the easy way out. The idea of defeating them is just some revolutionary fantasy and without any other means to modulate their behaviour you are just supporting the status quo. Absolutely, be constantly vigilant. Just remember to make a case for your point. An optional feature that you don't have to use does not seem like a good reason to hate a iTerm2. It would be like me declaring I am no longer going to use a web browser because it has the ability to view Facebook, I simply don't use that feature.
- mikl 2y ago
  AI is a concept, but OpenAI is a business. And their bread and butter is acquiring more data to train their models.