James ThomsonFeb 16

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!

Show threadJonathan PolleyFeb 16
@jamesthomson I stopped supporting ATP because of their change from “AI is theft” to “you should pay $20 per month for ChatGPT.”
Show threadAlexandraFeb 16
@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?
Show threadJonathan PolleyFeb 16

@owlex Are the training sets licensed or just strip mined from the web/redit/github/sourceforge? This was the cause for their “AI is theft” statement.

From a technical standpoint: Are these training sets free from bugs? If you use an ai tool to generate tests, are they useful tests? A useful test is one that tries to break the code instead of showing that the code “works. Tests that that exercise the interfaces or cover the code tend to not be “useful” tests.

Show threadAlexandraFeb 16

@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 😊

Show threadAiris DamonFeb 16
@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.
Show threadJohn
@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.
Feb 16 at 11:55amMastodon for Android
Show threadAiris DamonFeb 16
@mrkeen @owlex @the_other_jon There could be extralegal methods for democratization. I don't know. I'm not real enthused with the direction all this is heading toward.