photoGrant
To say they're better than the compute that OpenAI or Google are throwing at the problem is just plain wrong.
I left the ad industry the moment I realised my skills and talents are better used informing people than lying to them.
This thread is not at all comparing the ethical issues of AI with local anything. You're conflating your solution with another problem.
Making the argument open source is the answer is an agenda of making your competition spin wheels.
These companies are silo'ing the worlds resources. GPU, Finance, Information. Those combined are the weapon. You make your competition starve in the dust.
These companies are pure evil pushing an agenda of pure evil. OpenAI is closed. Google is Google. We're like, ok, there you go! Take it all. No accountability, no transparency, we trust you.
Where do we go from here? Things will magically get better on their own? Businesses will align with humanity and morals, not their investors?
This is the tip of the iceberg of concerns and it's ignored as a bug in the code not a problem with trusting private companies with defining truth.
The same crowd here that argue EULA's are a joke and need refactoring to protect the consumer are forgetting they ever argued this fact a day in their life.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39449887 - nerf'd https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39406709
these discussion are buried by fingers in ears thinking.
Ok! I appreciate this insight. At this point I'll be 'scraping' everything from tech and fight this in court with their own words.
Our existence in the 'now' means we're reactive to the now and the universe of events influence us as much if not more than our concept of free will. I don't think to make my skin react to cold air. If these models can't ingest, quantify or even understand/intuit current stimuli, they're a dead end solution and the problems are bigger, harder and still being ignored during the cash grab era.
I haven't seen or heard a single word of progress on that front. Any sources?
So if you want to learn the context of what 'performance' means there's no answer.
"You shouldn't trust any of these numbers too much" but infers a trend.
Dogfooding Era
> With that in mind, we need to ask what companies must do to use AI responsibly.
> What are a corporation’s responsibilities in the age of AI—to its employees, its customers, and its shareholders?
Responsibility and ethics stop at the incentives of the business and don't stretch one iota further.
Ethics is a marketing word
The rest is just airing itself like dirty laundry by the second response and ultimately just serves in contributing to a humans ability to quickly adapt to new environments. Which means bullshit just smells more nuanced today.
We can't even trust our own nose to smell bullshit but we're supposed to have a model for it.
Please think critically folks!
Regardless your semantics on your phonograph argument the reality remains. The artist remained as part of the contract of societys growth. Once again, this isn't a blank vinyl or a canvas or an empty parking lot where freedom of expression takes priority. The priority is the financial incentives and retaining control.
For you to argue there's any creativity that would come out of that is like arguing I'm being creative when I put coins into a vending machine and receive cigarettes. I'm as creative as the conditions the puppets of profit have allowed me to be. Money doesn't own this world despite its deep and confused hope. It steals from it.
> They spoke in terms exactly like you are now, and those ideas were wrong then, and they are almost certainly wrong now.
No, they were right then and they're right now. Otherwise based on your argument anything beyond a phonograph would be unnecessary. So why do people seek anything beyond their MP3? Why do they go to live shows? Why do people still visit the Mona Lisa even though they can see it at home for free with a google? Please, as much as you refuse to debate philosophy and art, those are the exact things being debated. So either listen to those who've spent their lives in their domain (it's why I don't falsify my Python accolades) or pretend you know better. But don't conflate. Do read Walter Benjamin's essay from 1935 on Works of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. I know, you won't.
Next you're going to tell me AI hip-hop has the same value, incentive and understanding as the people from Cabrini Greens trying to escape poverty and violence by creating something beautiful and relatable out of the human condition. Then you'll tell me it's not your fault they haven't 'out created' themselves to keep up with the theft of their very self. If the vultures could at the very least just fuck off until the person isn't alive enough to bare witness to it, you could at least feign some IP argument. It's otherwise just hot air hoping.
When you take an artists desire to speak to the world through self expression, and believe it's equivalent to building software you're forgetting that one of them is already extremely well compensated, the other is not aligned with those incentives.
But to be extremely well compensated, and then try to rob artists of their livelihoods for profit and convenience -- yes, folks are going to think this argument isn't quite as balanced as you're painting it.