Thoughts… - ThreadSky | a Reddit-style client for Bluesky

harkaway.bsky.social • 9 days ago

Thoughts…

My plans for a major retail emporium are being threatend by wholesalers who won't let me steal the stock.

Comments

Fundamentally I don't understand the desire to make AI "creative"
As a tool for medicine, science, spotting patterns so good for catching fraudsters and criminals, yes, but as an "artist", why?
Is it just jealousy from those who run the companies, because it's something they can't do?

harkaway.bsky.social•8 days ago

I suspect it’s simpler than that. More people want to be able to “make art” by issuing vague instructions than need a protein folding utility, so there’s money.

andrewfordlyons.net•9 days ago

Still not over the notion that people wanted this charlitan carpet bagger to be prime minister once.

harkaway.bsky.social•9 days ago

It made more sense when the alternatives were a guy who allegedly got his groove on with a dead pig’s head and a party which had attempted to legitimise torture in the British legal system.

andrewfordlyons.net•9 days ago

Fair.

christopherking.org•9 days ago

🤔 "twat"
or
"tech bro apologist who worked for a Trump arse kisser trying to protect the possible share price of a company that peddles a planet damaging, shonky product that nobody actually wants"

scurra.com•9 days ago

Someone elsewhere noted that we'd been warned by the SF writers that our future was grey goo. It just turns out that it's literary rather than physical.

tadethompson.bsky.social•9 days ago

So market forces, so beloved of capitalists, basically will kill the AI industry, so let's alter the market forces to save the capitalists.

harkaway.bsky.social•8 days ago

Yeah - constant chorus of “break capitalism so we can make money.” It’s some other -ism in a trench coat. Corporatism? Extractionism? Dunno. Beyond the obvious one, but that’s a different question.

cemurphy.bsky.social•8 days ago

Extractionism. I like that one.

thebrainofchris.bsky.social•8 days ago

It's the logical extension of the privatising essential utilities then heavily subsidising them from the public purse because we can't afford to have an essential utility go under.

Invent a utility, then *claim* it's essential so that the public must subsidise it.

victoriadecapua.bsky.social•8 days ago

the old pulling yourself up by my bootstraps

jmriqu.bsky.social•8 days ago

Ask any Chilean why the blackouts are so frequent…

leeceedee.bsky.social•9 days ago

Also 'kill the industry'? In order to save a few companies and some rich people; none of whom existed before the very short now? He'd prefer to kill creativity, or at least commit GBH on a profession that has been around almost since the year dot.

timmorton2.bsky.social•9 days ago

And of course AI requires enormous amounts of energy and water while compounding the climate crisis. I’m sure the electricity companies are delighted to supply the power for free.

richardparkin.bsky.social•9 days ago

Haven't they already infringed copyright on a massive scale? It is now a matter of compensation.

harkaway.bsky.social•9 days ago

I mean… you’d think.

richardparkin.bsky.social•9 days ago

it's a matter of them *avoiding* remuneration

harkaway.bsky.social•9 days ago

1 this is an industry talking point. It’s interesting to ask which version of AI requires this, and what the use cases are. Pretty sure Alpha Fold doesn’t care about novels, for example.

harkaway.bsky.social•9 days ago

2 it’s not uncommon, in megamoney deal-making, for companies to acquire something they cannot afford by leveraging, signing long term profit-share deals, or offering stock. That the industry chooses to ignore these options here is about perceived power, not tech or finance.

harkaway.bsky.social•9 days ago

3 it would not ultimately be inappropriate, IF the technology were demonstrably as important as proposed, for a government to cut a deal with its creatives - tax breaks, UBI, whatever - in exchange for training rights, then secure concessions from tech. Again, not discussed.

stephenstroud.bsky.social•9 days ago

Their logic seems to be that copyrighted content is an essential input for AI, for which they should escape paying because AI is essential for our futures. But if they are right should we not simply expropriate the benefits of AI without paying for it?

harkaway.bsky.social•9 days ago

4 Government could (and, in the event, must) use taxation to secure the future viability of human arts. Tax AI art products heavily to level the playing field and incentivise hiring humans.

travisjohnson.bsky.social•9 days ago

UBI for artists, paid for by a tax on AI companies is the closest thing to a solution this I've ever heard.

harkaway.bsky.social•9 days ago

It’s a great starting point for a conversation; there’s a lot of devil in that detail.

harkaway.bsky.social•9 days ago

5 The tech industry is desperate to present this as a binary - “give us everything or lose everything” - because a more nuanced discussion of real options is hugely damaging to the creation of ridiculous money - but not to the furtherance of actual usable ML/LLM tech.

harkaway.bsky.social•9 days ago

6 This is a hilarious - and perfectly reasonable - response. Love it. Mic drop from Stephen :)

https://bsky.app/profile/stephenstroud.bsky.social/post/3lpw4n4ilik23

squigglelaw.bsky.social•9 days ago

Nick clegg is absolutely wrong. Again.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply