it only generates the most statistically likely text string to follow
Sure, but if that looks identical to what an ectual expert would say, is there really a difference?
LLMs have no expertise, it can only regurgitate text strings that are most likely, based on stealing the creative and scientific output of actual experts
I do agree there is a problem eith AI companies using copyrighted works for training, but couldn’t you say the same thing about humans? If I read a book and tell someone else what I learned from that book, did I steal that information? If I pirated the book, yes. If I bought the book, then most people woulf say no.
as long as LLM providers decide they provide that
You say this as if we cant self host AI models. The companies don’t matter given this fact
Anyways, you read like a giant AI-Booster
I can separate greedy tech corporations from the development of new technology. If you denied electricities expansion because the Edison company was greedy, you’d be fighting the existence of electricity in our infrastructure.
But it’s ok, I can just block you for your “Mein AI-Kampf” screed here.
That’s probably for the best, given how that is an absurd ad hominem that is not related whatsoever to our discussion.
My main argument is that recognizing AI as a technology is inevitable and revolutionary, is very different from being okay with the AI mega corps, how they are devloping AI, and the environmental impacts of it. AI can be done right, that doesn’t mean it is.
Sure, but if that looks identical to what an ectual expert would say, is there really a difference?
I do agree there is a problem eith AI companies using copyrighted works for training, but couldn’t you say the same thing about humans? If I read a book and tell someone else what I learned from that book, did I steal that information? If I pirated the book, yes. If I bought the book, then most people woulf say no.
You say this as if we cant self host AI models. The companies don’t matter given this fact
I can separate greedy tech corporations from the development of new technology. If you denied electricities expansion because the Edison company was greedy, you’d be fighting the existence of electricity in our infrastructure.
That’s probably for the best, given how that is an absurd ad hominem that is not related whatsoever to our discussion.
My main argument is that recognizing AI as a technology is inevitable and revolutionary, is very different from being okay with the AI mega corps, how they are devloping AI, and the environmental impacts of it. AI can be done right, that doesn’t mean it is.