nucleogenesis
I tend to agree with your sentiment but this line made me think you’re underestimating the degree to which the law stops the powerful from doing evil. They see the law as a hassle to be calculated against and if there is no legal friction to stealing and using others’ creations they just will.
So it’s not that Amazon would take your novel, short story, etc and redistribute it. It’s that they’d make a whole series of movies or TV series using your creations and give you nothing and have to give you nothing.
Copyright being eliminated is among my more “idealistically anarchistic” wishes I think but so long as we’re in a society as legalistic and with such an imbalance of power generally, copyright protects more than it hurts I think.
Plenty of journalists are eating well reporting on the negative externalities actively felt by residents who live near data centers. It is not hard to find if you look.
I don’t want something you prompted an AI for because genuinely I could just do that myself. The barrier to entry is nil. I’m not interested in the idea an artist has I’m interested in how they execute it.
If they executed it through human effort then I place a much much higher value on that. Same as I would if someone selling a hand forged a knife rather than a mass produced cut out.
Even if the human-made item is lower quality I’d prefer it by a mile if for no other reason than I know someone’s love and effort went into it.
I could never have that appreciation for something a machine generated.
The lines might blur if an artist uses an AI to manipulate their own art that they made.
Point is - the output quality fundamentally doesn’t matter. It’s principle, not the output quality, that guides most people in avoiding AI art.
If you replaced your art team with an AI I won’t give you my money. If you lie about it then you’re just a scumbag. If your professional artists are using AI for their own work à la how I use it to generate code, I’m less bothered, particularly if they’re iterating on their own artistic inputs.
It’s just a matter of principle. Some of the evilest people on earth are the ones who own, operate, and directly benefit from the commercial proliferation of these tools. They commit crimes against us but see no consequence for which national-level politicians they’ve been sure to own. They’re aggressive in how they buy and corrupt local governments against the wishes of their constituents and the burden of responsibility is diffused because it’s not Anthropic buying your city council, it’s some other corp who focuses on building and operating power sinks that ruin entire neighborhoods and drive up their natural resource costs.
The reasons to hate AI (the industry as opposed to the technology) are impossible to ignore unless you keep your head buried firmly in the sand.
If one’s moral compass suggests that building a business on deceit is okay then I suspect they don’t particularly care about all of the externalities anyway.
It feels to me like the discretion of the humans is the main problem in your solution space example.
Some tasks require more structure than others. Sometimes, the constraint a human faces is “you must do the work in this module or on this function”.
If the prompt says “only change this function” then the human has a good reason for that. If the LLM can’t figure it out then letting them cook on it feels like a waste of my time and tokens.
Too often I’ve sent Opus or Fable now on what I thought was a simple task to find it chasing its tail.
Fortunately I find more success than tail-chasing with the LLMs but I’m dubious of any suggestion to just let them cook.
However, a solution to the tail-chasing for certain could be to intentionally expand the solution space and to consider how my prompts might be restricting the LLM’s options.
Enjoyed the blog thanks for sharing!
People who are “soft on crime”, practically speaking, are the people and politicians so committed to dehumanizing others that they’d rather watch their neighbors wallow in poverty or rot in jail than to actually do something to address the root causes (the foremost of which being the aforementioned societal dehumanization of the poor).
I enjoyed the article but it was a nightmare to read on my phone’s browser
This is where they manipulate in my mind. They maximize that time by exploiting human psychology, manipulating people into scrolling their feeds endlessly eh?
The purpose of most social media companies is to manipulate people for financial and political gain which is what they do.
The bias is what would make somebody consider some propaganda good and others bad.
Like - anti-fascist propaganda is good because it’s biased against an anti-human and oppressive ideology.
That said I’ve only seen people making house/techno/drum-n-bass kinda stuff with it.
Thanks for mentioning superdough I hadn’t seen it anywhere while I was playing with all of the above. Piqued my curiosity :)
Really I just think that anthropomorphizing LLMs is a dangerous road in many ways and really it’s mostly marketing BS anyway.
I haven’t seen anything that shows evidence of LLMs being anything beyond a very sophisticated computer system.
Don’t get me wrong - Newsom is a slippery snake politician and is beholden to rich scumbag donors but I don’t see how this in particular is due to his and the dems big donors.
That said you seem to imply that only one side of this shitshow is beholden to big donors but corruption and general degeneracy is far more prevalent in the elephant party.
Commercials are on their face a work of fiction unless stated otherwise — for customer testimonials in commercials that are fake (in the US anyway) there has to be text saying as much. Because otherwise they’d be lying…
I’m not regularly smashing my phone or especially careless with it, but in a year I’ve seen it take a dozen or so drops and I’m glad it had a case on it when it did.
I appreciate the site’s overview and comparisons and such too