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!
@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.
@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. 😊
Thank you for this answer 😊
I respect that position, and you're right that ethical stances often require sacrifice. But I think we're drawing different lines here. I don't see AI as something we can just starve by not using it. It's already everywhere, being used by corporations, governments, everyone. So for me, the question is: do I abstain entirely while others use it uncritically, or do I use it thoughtfully and keep pushing for better regulation?
I am trying to navigate the reality I am living in.
As I said in other posts it helps me navigate with my ADHD and also I’m kind of forced to use it at work.
What I am doing is to advocate for using different models at work and talking with people about the problems of AI. All while being really excited how we can use it to make lives better, because it has cool use cases.
Also I am pragmatic singular boycott never helped much. We need regulations in place, that’s the most important thing
James Thomson
Jonathan Polley
Alexandra
Stephen 🌈 (he/him)