I’m not sure about the specific reasons for him being on the list but IMO he was always uncomfortably lax about the topic. I remember having a discussion with him on Twitter all the way back in 2022 where he argued AI training seems legal to him if unfair to artists on a personal level
but then promptly deleted all the comments once I pointed out how AI companies back then wouldn’t touch copyright protected music bc of legal concerns (which was pointed out in several prominent interviews and articles). I was made to believe it was completely new information to him, which just
showed he felt comfortable discussing a topic without doing the bare minimum research. Not good!
I think he has largely avoided the topic since, but these new takes of the “I see why people dislike them, but LLMs are useful” variety show he has remained quite uninformed 😔
P.S. Changing your opinion based on new information and learning through conversations with other people are both great things btw! But IMO public figures and educators should probably do that in private first :’)
which makes me think again about the fact quite a few online educators whose work I liked and respected showed a worrisome lack of due diligence and research when speaking on the topic of generative AI… which just made me super suspicious of their takes on things I’m less knowledgeable about
this sounds healthy to me - its important to always bring a skeptical eye. especially when you agree with someone! and keep in mind its not like a fruit: one idea with rot doesn't mean every idea from a educator is wrong.
Comments
I think he has largely avoided the topic since, but these new takes of the “I see why people dislike them, but LLMs are useful” variety show he has remained quite uninformed 😔