Comment by hgs3
4 days ago
And remember, these AI models were trained on your work, your culmination of effort and sacrifice, without any consent, credit, or compensation, then sold back to you for a subscription fee.
4 days ago
And remember, these AI models were trained on your work, your culmination of effort and sacrifice, without any consent, credit, or compensation, then sold back to you for a subscription fee.
It's only fair if 99% of revenue flows back to humanity. The models are worthless without its training data.
Universal Basic Income, ah no sorry, Universal High Income...
I would like to say "let's see how that goes". But I'm afraid I don't quite trust that "things will just go well". At least not nearly as fast as A(G)I development is happening. I feel fortunate that I don't worry about this too much personally, but I fear for our economy, laid off (office) workers, their families, in a few months and years. What am I to do? How can we fix this? Am I exaggerating?
UBI is a distraction.
The public needs to own AGI, not be given a small allowance from it.
UBI would make us dependent on the grace and generosity of those who have proven themselves to have neither.
4 replies →
The guy who has hoarded the most wealth on the planet says "trust me I'll share later". Would you trust him? <no> REALLY?
Or try another way. When everyone loses their jobs to AI and can't pay taxes will the billion and trillilnares who are still rich volunteer to fund UHI? (How did the California billionaire tax to fund healthcare go?)
Many organizations are giving away capable models for free.
So.. they’re being trained on all of the information that some used to make their living with by writing books, presenting seminars, etc. on a topic.. without paying for it, and then giving it all away for free?
Idk if that’s much better
What's with the obsession of paying for what led to current situation? Who is paying credits to cyanobacteria for terraforming Earth, apart specific articles on the matter?
This is conflating care that every human can thrive their best with desire to see everyone bound to some dominance strategy of hieratic pissing territory.
2 replies →
For now. Once people are hooked, and/or once some of that investment capital starts to be expected to generate some dividends (see https://isaiprofitable.com/), free use will be very limited.
It's good enough that you could go off-the-grid, to a cabin in the woods like the Unabomber, and use it for some tasks.
That’s what standing on the shoulders of giants refers to. This is how science has always worked. The generated papers have attributions and citations just like if a human wrote them.
>That’s what standing on the shoulders of giants refers to. This is how science has always worked.
Yes, but automating and commercializing a process makes it inherently different. Just because everyone has always been welcome to drink from the village well, that countless generations have worked tirelessly to dig, maintain, and improve, doesn't mean that there's no basis for complaint when Nestle sticks a pump down it and starts draining the aquifer to bottle and sell.
The lack of an existing law (or custom) against new behavior doesn't actually render it necessarily non-grotesque.
This analogy doesn’t work. A more apt analogy is Nestle putting a pump down in the well and sucking out industrial quantities of water but simultaneously digging more wells as well. The “more wells” is more avenues for further research building on what it has proved/found.
2 replies →
But Nestle’s pump not only doesn’t deplete the well, it’s adding to it!
3 replies →
The giants are quite often credited by name, or have their work cited.
Or are revered teachers that you'll never forget.
Pretty sure AI is more akin to standing on the shoulders of giants and peeing into the wind
Take a philosophy class or read more books. Your response is devoid of humanity and philosophical introspection.
> That’s what standing on the shoulders of giants refers to. This is how science has always worked
OpenAI's Navier-Stokes finding is closer to Crick and Watson in respect of Franklin's research than conventional science.