tescreal
The future is turning out to be fascinating as concerning.
On the contrary, it demonstrates an unwillingness to grapple with inconvenient problems, as does the rest of your reply.
>'s a solved problem. Synthetic training data is a valuable addition now. It requires a way to validate or rank it but that's not any worse than cleaning and filtering human data.
Untrue for artistic outputs oddly enough.
>build a trillion dollar industry on it.
Or selectively quote in the comment section to dullen the need to address issues.
The output could be fine in itself, except people (arbitrarily, some could say) value the human production. Displacement is simply a matter of volume: the sleepless machine can churn indefinitely while people can not. The thing is too, most outputs being mass produced are of a substantially lower quality than people (and what is possible).
A problem is people are being tricked into it, or being given little choice. If 90% of companies use AI (as in, mandated from leadership), what "choice" is there? If people recognize the 10% remaining and do business with them exclusively, economics will take over and force either price hikes or the 10% to grow. It's playing chicken.
Based on what the trends seem to be, people will unknowingly keep taking in products with AI (mostly out of not understanding the choice).
As for the enclosure point which is important: People make things for their enjoyment. When people try to profit off their work, they rightfully get put off. The deal is "if you can view this for free, it isn't meant to be sold. If it is sold, I deserve to have my time compensated". AI training/scraping has violated this agreement, and funnels the money to a third party to the people who made the valuable originating art. If it was not valuable, then why not train AI on its own output? Since that appears to be a "problem", there must be something about what humans create that has value AI cannot produce itself.
>Are these talking points perhaps crafted to benefit a small group of people who will lose the edge they currently have to a larger number of people enabled by these new tools?
That flavour of conspiratorial thinking is one of the reasons for polarization. Sometimes, people prefer the human touch. This applies mostly to art and other topics lumped into "the Humanities".
Hope that clears things up for you, or at least sheds light on why people might not see things in the way you do.
The "classic" console homebrew scenes are incredible. The stuff I've seen for PS1 never ceases to impress.
In some ways, it seems like the heyday of a console is long after it is commercially viable.
Additionally, I'm not sure how you square NYT coverage being more critical of generally worse behavior as "top down" without a citation, care to point at anything to substantiate that statement?
Innovative, in some part sure. But lately the running jokes have become "Uber, but for $X", which hints at imaginative stagnation. AI has been the largest shake up in a decade (or more), but it is hard for Average Joe to grasp what is changing.
The second one is very important. While it is a matter of pride that some do understand, and (given enough time, in my opinion) will continue to understand, it is sufficient to be merely correct even if one does not understand why. This is a nice feature of math: it remains true regardless of understanding.
The obvious caveat is the machine needs to prove it in the end, even if we can not.
I'm not really shocked to see this happening, even though I remain disappointed. Not the sheer use factor, tools are tools in my humble opinion, but the disregard for the lowly hackers who established the foundations and culture that led here. That is going to die, as the exclusionary pressures build.
Unfortunate, I guess next maybe I'll wait for the Year of the Plan9 Desktop.
Full disclosure: I'm not American and do prefer a little gun regulation generally.
Tracing is a cardinal sin.
People lose careers over not understanding the massive difference.
dns resolver fail?
In my community (outside USA), we use local websites and posted bills. There's no magic to it.
>Network effects
If people decide the cost/effort is too high, that will dissipate.
>"Somebody else will"
This amounts to a thought-terminating cliche at this point. You are responsible for your own choices, not what others do. It's the worst cop out, you are claiming no agency.
*royal "you" where applicable.
I find a lot of responses to these stories fiendish. It is not "privileged" to refuse a bad deal. If anything, it is "privileged" to say one has no choice.
Sorry if this comes off as rantish... I find a lot of the conversation around big conglomerates tedious and usually just laden with overtly bad-faith arguments and lazy defeatism. Conversely, love or hate Woolf, surely there is enough respect for simple arts people should find these behaviors abhorrent.
I live in a community (outside USA) where it is common to advertise offline or alternative outlets.
There's no dependence "because others do". That is just defeatism. If people choose en masse to change their habits, the world has to follow suit, imho.
I believe AI is quite capable in the right circumstances, but I'm not convinced "this" is the watershed moment.
What I want is simple: accountability. If a human hits a human, we throw the book at them in the case of a modality of negligence. If a robot screws up, how do we remedy and discourage?
Glad they protect Luanti's copyright & fund development.
For haters: ignore them and recommend your favourite. For lovers: lobby the developers to raise their standards.