RE: https://infosec.exchange/@cR0w/116244751172093572
I'm so sorry in advance for this long post, but this has been on my mind lately and I want others' thoughts on it.
I think I agree with the person I'm quoting, but I can't be sure because despite using it, I'm starting to hate "AI" as a term. It's not their fault that the definition has been mutilated, but I have to wonder if they're against AI in theory or in it's current form.
My stance is against any sort of "AI" that steals the work of others and either claims it as original, or uses it to modify someone's otherwise untainted creation. I assume that's what they're referring to, in which case I 100% agree.
That said, I'm unaware of any issues with machine learning itself when ethical and, of course, not based around widespread theft. So, OP, what do you think about using such programs to automate painfully tedious tasks? This wouldn't steal from others or remove any creativity from a work, only use a algorithm to, for instance, display rough subtitles as a placeholder for, or in absence of, proper ones. It could also be used as a starting point for a person to later refine. This kind of thing has been around for years, in the same way text-to-speech voices have helped the vision impaired and even ADHDers like myself (I have trouble reading long-ass academic essays).
Previous examples of this tech haven't caused harm, so if a system for generating subtitles is FLOSS and improves with usage (I think that's what machine learning means?), then it's a good thing, right? How do I distinguish between such software and the dystopian slop machines we're all rallying against?
#ai #GenerativeAI #AISlop #FuckAI #NoAI #LLM #LLMs