and a toyota camry can’t compete with a lamborghini but the camry vastly outsells them.
you’re far far far more likely to see a camry or equivalent in an americans driveway than you are a super car.
you’re also more likely to see an enthusiast with a corvette or equivalent muscle car spending way more than it’s worth to tinker on that car in their garage than you are a super car.
the companies will have no one but themselves to blame when they’re regulated in and out.
if the companies don’t care at all about people and society to take actual material concrete steps to help, then we don’t need to care about them.
if they don’t care about me and mine, then i don’t care about them.
if a company cares about profits at any cost and has no regard for people, regulate them right out of business. i’m ok with that, they don’t care about me, have no obligation towards them.
> ... there is a reasonably strong argument that it was wrong to use copyrighted material for AI training without paying royalties nor even asking for permission. But equally, every country wants to have the most powerful models and enforcing such royalties would make it effectively impossible to train them as the amount of material required would cost an insane amount in royalty fees.
i think you're spot on this is one of the key arguments made beneath the surface. what i find so strikingly frustrating about it is, so many of the ai cultists [0] will imply and sometimes even outright say that writers, artists, musicians are silly useless and overvalued and the work artists do is entirely frivolous. then next breath explain why those artist's work is one of the most important things for a model to be trained on. suddenly art is very important. we absolutely must have access to their work. but also we shouldnt pay them because their work is silly and unimportant.
if an artists (musician, writer, journalist, painter, etc...) work is useless, then obviously you dont need it for training. if their work is imperative and you absolutely must use it, then pay for it.
ive noticed this with ai companies a lot. over and over again they contradict themselves to the core.
1) art is silly and not important enough to pay for but its absolutely foundational and we must be given unfettered access or our models will suck.
2) "our models are the smartest thing in the entire world. also, you're a dipshit if you trust them at all."
ill say it again, if removing art and culture from the training sets would render your model useless, then obviously pay for it.
[0] when i say cultists, im not talking about normal people who use ai. im talking about an entirely different group, we all know the types im talking about.
the monetization is what killed blogs. great blogs still exist, but they’re almost entirely people writing about whatever their passion is, because they’re passionate. it’s as old as time, my dad uses the term “sellouts” when he’s contrasting terrible bands with good bands from his era. skateboarders call them kooks. same thing only with blogs, sellouts.
find the people who are writing blogs out of passion, not the idiot bloggers writing seo spam.
let’s not forget the marketers who work for the same companies we do.
how many times have we all seen marketing departments or sales departments in our companies entirely misrepresent the abilities or purpose of a product we built?
it’s fucking unreal how many times i’ve seen on here where the engineers of a product were like “don’t blame us, our team was screaming trying to be heard that the marketing/sales departments are outright lying about the capabilities.”
at which point they’ve often twisted and bastardized the product opposite of the reasons we built it to begin with.
yeah, he seems to have the same issue a lot of these guys have. i’m convinced we’re going to find out at some point they’re all on some kind of modern meth type drug that entirely breaks their reality. the similarities between so many of their shifts are too striking.
well it could be limited to companies who are entirely dedicated to surveillance and massive data collection on citizens like palantir. particularly with that and how ideology based palantir appears to be.
i’m sure they wouldn’t be nearly as concerned about a US company that manufactured screwdrivers or nike or something similar.
if you take the time to read karp’s manifesto and look into thiels beliefs, then maybe it wouldn’t seem “vibes-based” for you.
an example that may cure you of your “vibes-based” confusion, karp, palantirs ceo, argues clearly for authoritarianism and aggressive surveillance of the general population. he hilariously tries to convince people that the best way to have democracy is to not have it at all. a kind of “to protect your freedom, we’ll take away your freedom” idea that only a certain kind of person falls for.
so yes, people may find it silly to pretend those politics aren’t troubling, particularly when its relating to a government. i’m sure you’re aware that considering political ideas when thinking about how a government is operating isn’t “vibes-based”, it’s integral.
does this one example appease you that it isn’t “vibes based”? if this example doesn’t help you understand, both karp and thiel are not at all shy about their anti-freedom views. they’ve spoken loudly and publicly about them all over the place. if you’re truly curious, there is plenty of info out there you can read.
just be aware, they try to couch their ideas in rhetoric like “the best way to have democracy is to let us take it from you” or “let us surveil you so you can know you have privacy and freedom” kind of nonsense. it’s pretty obvious so i’m sure you won’t be tricked.
its probably a bit unrealistic to expect children to "Have some personal responsibility for once." id agree with you if a 50 year old said, "omgolly meta, you used trickery on me."
but if the evidence shows they have specifically targeted children, then i can understand the concerns.
and yes, im aware how dangerous it is to declare "lets protect the children" but we also have to recognize this is a messy situation, and one that needs to be sorted out. i dont pretend to hold the answers, but to hand waive it away as hysteria or whatever is probably not a good solution.
and honestly, i think we need more of this online. we shouldn’t feel this incessant need to constantly chirp back at someone if we think they’re wrong.
i’d personally like to see us get to a place where we say more often “huh. i disagree with that person and that’s ok” and move on with our day.
i do find it worrying how we get … twitchy … if we can’t respond to literally everything.
yep, i just wrote an overly long comment that was trying to get across what you said in a paragraph. if its a random online, dont over think it. i started to pay way more attention to the real world people in my life and im much much much happier for it.
the main pieces that i had to truly understand in order to recognize and stop most online arguing were:
1) performativeness. if the person responding to you is performing for other readers rather than having a genuine good-faith discussion with you, just move on. i still catch myself being performative sometimes and it grosses me out when i recognize it lol.
2) real world vs online behaviors. if someone is an asshole in the real world, we just wouldnt talk to them. not sure how we've convinced ourselves that online is different. if someone refuses to take the time to respond in a socially normal way, then why would you take the time to respond? if they wont take the time to be social, why would you?
little ass kids learn this shit in like kindergarten. if someone is a dick, no one is friends with them. if my friends and i are in a bar and some random is being an asshole, we dont "debate" them, we move on. again, tiny children learn this shit lol.
3) real people whose opinions you care about. make a list. when i did it, it turned out to be less than 20. the people on your list are the only people you should feel any obligation towards. not randoms on the internet. dont spend your valuable time/energy/mental arguing with random internet assholes. your list of real people are the only ones you should feel any obligation towards because if you value them, they likely value you opinions as well.
4) good faith. you'll know in one or two responses if the person replying is there in good-faith. if they're not, move on.
5) knowledge peers. its ok to recognize that someone is not on the same knowledge level as you in a topic. whether they know more or know less, either way, its ok. if we're lucky we are experts in one or two topics and dipshits in most topics. accept that fact. i know this is tough in our industry, we are overflowing with people who think they're smarter than they are. its ok to recognize that the other person is not your knowledge peer on the topic and adjust accordingly: up, down, or out.
6) conversation vs debate. if someone doesnt recognize there is a vast difference between normal conversation and debate, dont waste your time. honestly, they're typically gross to engage with.
and of course, find real world hobbies. once you have the hobby, it naturally becomes "why would i argue with this dickbag online when i could be doing something way more fun."
i think you’ve hit the nail on the head. it’s the unmanaged part. it isn’t clear to me how We collectively are shocked when these marketing and execs convince us “oh, there’s nothing we can do. having customer service would be cost prohibitive. making sure there are no scams would be cost prohibitive. etc… etc…”
how about you get some customer service and protect us from scams and don’t buy your third private island and fourth mega yacht and have net worth larger than a lot of countries?
oh, that’s asking too much. you’re right, “nothing” can be done.
you’re far far far more likely to see a camry or equivalent in an americans driveway than you are a super car.
you’re also more likely to see an enthusiast with a corvette or equivalent muscle car spending way more than it’s worth to tinker on that car in their garage than you are a super car.