3 ms·

I think that the example you give is similar to another comment around here, where someone said ChatGPT helped them learn Python. I can imagine that it does hel

by palata 2y ago

I think that the example you give is similar to another comment around here, where someone said ChatGPT helped them learn Python. I can imagine that it does help them learn, there. And that's great! But I believe that it is a different situation from what I was describing. For someone who is already a professional, I think that AIs risk to prevent them from improving. The industry will push us towards using the AI and tuning the output because that is more productive now, even if it means that we don't improve our skills. > This technology doesn't threaten people, it empowers them. AI threatens many people in many ways. For instance by enabling phishing to a level never seen before. By being a big copyright-laundering machine in favour of BigTech. By teaching people to believe an eloquent, all-knowing chat interface because most of the time it seems good enough to not fact-check. Etc. > It doesn't harm creativity, it enables it. Do you know any professional artist? I do. I have an example in the animation movies business. You know what genAI brings to their job? They are pushed to have a genAI generate images, select those that are good enough, photoshop them a bit and move to the next. This is the definition of "harming creativity". If AI makes you twice as productive, it's okay to lower the quality of what you produce, right? You'll just sell more of lower-quality stuff. That's a tendency that has existed in software in the last decade, but it feels like LLMs will bring that to a whole new level. > I don't know about "worthless arguments" My apologies. Re-reading it out of context, it sounds harsh. It's not an excuse, but I wrote it after answering a few other comments that all said "people said that for technology X and they were wrong, which proves that if you say it now for technology Y you are most likely wrong as well". > hits close to home, because in this case I was arguably the asshole I wouldn't call that being an asshole. Not helping someone for free because they are stuck using the stuff you provided for free is completely fine. I have had many people over the years telling me how my project sucked, how it was making them lose money, how they wouldn't use my project unless I added X and Y. When being part of a larger community, I've had people pressure me by telling everybody and their cat, on public channels, that "well you shouldn't use this project because it seems unmaintained" (last commit was some weeks before, issues had been answered days before). Or complaining about the license because it makes it harder for them to make money out of my free work. Many times people don't even realise that they are assholes. They think that if I published my work for free, they are the customer, and they deserve free support. Users of open source projects make me want to keep my stuff proprietary. Not because I don't want them to benefit, but just because I want them to stop bullying me.

CamperBob2 2y ago
I hear what you're saying, but I have to say that I think you're conflating bad management practices with the effects of generative AI. The artist's boss sounds like a clown following a bandwagon and creating a toxic work environment at the same time. Hope your friend is able to break free, because if AI isn't what eventually drives them to go postal in that workplace, something else will. As for copyright, that's a matter for the courts and legislature to decide. If copyright maximalism wins, such that training is not considered fair use, or that liability for infringement attaches to the trainer of the model rather than its users, it will really do a number on American competitiveness. Such a decision would transfer an enormous amount of power to countries that DGAF about copyright law. The most competitive AI models are always going to rely on snarfing up as much data as possible, legally or otherwise, and I'm OK with that. Copyright is a recent invention, historically speaking; we got along fine without it for thousands of years. What happening in AI, on the other hand, can potentially take us to the next level as a species. If that means the end of copyright as a concept, so be it. My big concern is that like most futures (to paraphrase Gibson), this one won't exactly be equally distributed.
- palata 2y ago
  > I think you're conflating bad management practices with the effects of generative AI. I kindly disagree :-). Management is about increasing profit, not improving the product. And we see the results: arguably most products are worse today than they were 10 years ago. Software is a great example of that: the hardware made huge progress, but the resulting software is slightly worse than it was with hardware orders of magnitudes slower. > As for copyright, that's a matter for the courts and legislature to decide. Unfortunately, I think the US are showing us differently. The billionaires decide and again, they optimise their profit. > What happening in AI, on the other hand, can potentially take us to the next level as a species. All the established science says that we are about to collapse (most species are, already: we are the cause of the current mass extinction that is the fastest in the history of the planet). We don't have a solution to the energy problem, and we're running out of time. We don't have a solution to the climate problem, and we're running out of time. And we don't have a solution to the biodiversity, that is well into a mass extinction. There is one thing we know we can do: start doing less with less, adapt our society to handle the coming changes as well as possible and accept that it will be worse than today anyway. The direction we are taking, though, is what you suggest: hope for a miracle, hope for what we don't know. "Maybe technology will save us". Sure. Maybe god will, too. Feels unlikely to me.

by palata 2y ago

CamperBob2 2y ago

I hear what you're saying, but I have to say that I think you're conflating bad management practices with the effects of generative AI. The artist's boss sounds like a clown following a bandwagon and creating a toxic work environment at the same time. Hope your friend is able to break free, because if AI isn't what eventually drives them to go postal in that workplace, something else will. As for copyright, that's a matter for the courts and legislature to decide. If copyright maximalism wins, such that training is not considered fair use, or that liability for infringement attaches to the trainer of the model rather than its users, it will really do a number on American competitiveness. Such a decision would transfer an enormous amount of power to countries that DGAF about copyright law. The most competitive AI models are always going to rely on snarfing up as much data as possible, legally or otherwise, and I'm OK with that. Copyright is a recent invention, historically speaking; we got along fine without it for thousands of years. What happening in AI, on the other hand, can potentially take us to the next level as a species. If that means the end of copyright as a concept, so be it. My big concern is that like most futures (to paraphrase Gibson), this one won't exactly be equally distributed.

palata 2y ago
> I think you're conflating bad management practices with the effects of generative AI. I kindly disagree :-). Management is about increasing profit, not improving the product. And we see the results: arguably most products are worse today than they were 10 years ago. Software is a great example of that: the hardware made huge progress, but the resulting software is slightly worse than it was with hardware orders of magnitudes slower. > As for copyright, that's a matter for the courts and legislature to decide. Unfortunately, I think the US are showing us differently. The billionaires decide and again, they optimise their profit. > What happening in AI, on the other hand, can potentially take us to the next level as a species. All the established science says that we are about to collapse (most species are, already: we are the cause of the current mass extinction that is the fastest in the history of the planet). We don't have a solution to the energy problem, and we're running out of time. We don't have a solution to the climate problem, and we're running out of time. And we don't have a solution to the biodiversity, that is well into a mass extinction. There is one thing we know we can do: start doing less with less, adapt our society to handle the coming changes as well as possible and accept that it will be worse than today anyway. The direction we are taking, though, is what you suggest: hope for a miracle, hope for what we don't know. "Maybe technology will save us". Sure. Maybe god will, too. Feels unlikely to me.