True, but something is qualitatively different. Similar to open-source software projects, where people used to participate for the love of the game. Now that machines are doing the work, there is less human connection and feeling of community.
Why bother contributing when there's no one on the other side. There's value being produced, but the beneficiary is mainly the corporations who run the models. Even if the result eventually benefits society in general, the credit goes to them. Not that "credit" or "clout" means much practically, but there used to be emotional and social value for the people involved.
There is still emotional and social value. The AI is a tool in the hands of a competent operator.
You’re blinded by your hate for corporations, if you cannot see value here. The actual human who’s working on it responds, and you can’t help but make it about the AI that you believe is somehow only benefiting the corporation.
David Harvey, the author of the paper linked here, hasn't even read the paper on the topic. He says as much in the paper, directly. The repo linked in response shows little sign of human authorship.
Has anyone actually gone through and fully understood the contents? My bet would be that nobody has looked, let alone understood, anything in there.
So, is collaboration just paying for more tokens, or is it doing the human understanding that the authors couldn't be arsed to do?
Either way, I hope nobody is foolish enough to fall for it.
We need to design an AIGPL - you can only use the collective expertise that created our code to train a model if the model, its training data and potentially its output are also available via AIGPL.
Why not embrace nihilism now instead taking the long way to get there?
At the end of the day there is no reason, there is no purpose but the one you make for yourself. The universe doesn't care and will slowly wind itself down to thermal noise.
If they want to make a lean solution and publish it then they can because that's what they want to do.
And if you're breaking this much already, the future is going to be really really hard on you. You are not ready for what is coming.
You keep saying this human connection thing, but it has no bearing on moving the frontier forward. A lot of these problems have remained unsolved for hundreds of years. What is your claim here, that they should remain unsolved artificially for 100 more years so that human mathematicians can have careers and community?
What's the point of solving them if not to serve people? How much harm are you interested in doing for answers that the people supposedly interested in them didn't even read?
Either you care about advancing the frontier of knowledge or you don't. If you care, then you should use every tool available to you. If you don't, then society has no obligation to fund your personal hobby interests. Calling this "selling out" is ridiculous.
True, but something is qualitatively different. Similar to open-source software projects, where people used to participate for the love of the game. Now that machines are doing the work, there is less human connection and feeling of community.
Why bother contributing when there's no one on the other side. There's value being produced, but the beneficiary is mainly the corporations who run the models. Even if the result eventually benefits society in general, the credit goes to them. Not that "credit" or "clout" means much practically, but there used to be emotional and social value for the people involved.
There is still emotional and social value. The AI is a tool in the hands of a competent operator.
You’re blinded by your hate for corporations, if you cannot see value here. The actual human who’s working on it responds, and you can’t help but make it about the AI that you believe is somehow only benefiting the corporation.
David Harvey, the author of the paper linked here, hasn't even read the paper on the topic. He says as much in the paper, directly. The repo linked in response shows little sign of human authorship.
Has anyone actually gone through and fully understood the contents? My bet would be that nobody has looked, let alone understood, anything in there.
So, is collaboration just paying for more tokens, or is it doing the human understanding that the authors couldn't be arsed to do?
Either way, I hope nobody is foolish enough to fall for it.
10 replies →
We need to design an AIGPL - you can only use the collective expertise that created our code to train a model if the model, its training data and potentially its output are also available via AIGPL.
Why not embrace nihilism now instead taking the long way to get there?
At the end of the day there is no reason, there is no purpose but the one you make for yourself. The universe doesn't care and will slowly wind itself down to thermal noise.
If they want to make a lean solution and publish it then they can because that's what they want to do.
And if you're breaking this much already, the future is going to be really really hard on you. You are not ready for what is coming.
You keep saying this human connection thing, but it has no bearing on moving the frontier forward. A lot of these problems have remained unsolved for hundreds of years. What is your claim here, that they should remain unsolved artificially for 100 more years so that human mathematicians can have careers and community?
What's the point of solving them if not to serve people? How much harm are you interested in doing for answers that the people supposedly interested in them didn't even read?
3 replies →
This is why mathematics are having serious discussions about math without mathematics, right?
The people using AI should be paid well enough that they can justify selling out their peers.
Either you care about advancing the frontier of knowledge or you don't. If you care, then you should use every tool available to you. If you don't, then society has no obligation to fund your personal hobby interests. Calling this "selling out" is ridiculous.
What knowledge? The authors haven't even read the output.
4 replies →