Anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it

Ew... stay away from my content, you creep!

If you think of LLMs as being akin to lossy text compression of a set of text, where the compression artifacts happen to also result in grammatical-looking sentences, the question you eventually end up asking is "why is the compression lossy? What if we had the same thing but it returned text from its database without chewing it up first?" and then you realize that you've come full circle and reinvented search engines

unironically saying "the sharing economy" in the year of our lord 2024 is... certainly a choice

also

God knows we old-timers tried to be cynical about ChatGPT, pedantically insisting that AI was actually just machine learning and that Altman’s new toy was nothing but cheap mimicry. But the rest of the world knew better

idk dude I've talked to the rest of the world about this and most of them actually seem to dislike this technology, it seems like maybe you didn't actually try very hard to be cynical

Yeah, I think his ideological commitment to "all intellectual property rights are bad forever and always amen" kind of blinds him to the actual issue here, and his proposed solution is kind of nonsensical in terms of its ability to get off the ground.

More broadly, (ie not just in relation to Cory Doctorow), I've seen the take floating around that's like "hey, what the heck, artists who were opposed to ridiculous IP rights restrictions when it was the music industry doing it are now in favor of those restrictions when it's AI, what gives with this hypocrisy?" which I think kind of... misses the point?

A lot of artists generally are in favor of using their work for interesting collaborative stuff and aren't going to get mad if you use their stuff for your own creative endeavors. This is why we have things like Creative Commons. The actual things artists tend not to like are things like having their work used for commercial purposes without permission and/or having their work taken without credit. (This is why CC licenses often restrict these usages!) With that in mind, a lot of the artist outrage over AI feels much more in line with artists getting mad about, say, watermark-removal tools, or people reposting art without credit, than it does with the copyright battles of the 00s. (You may remember one of the big things artists were affronted by about AI art was the way it would imitate an artist's signature, because of what that represented.)

In this case, artists are leaning on copyright not out of any particular ideological commitment but just because it's the blunt instrument that they already have at their disposal. But I think Cory Doctorow's previous experience in "getting mad at the MPAA" or whatever kind of forces him to analyze this using the same framing as that issue, which doesn't really make sense in this case. And ironically saying "copyright shouldn't count for AI" aligns him with the position of the MPAA so it really does feel like a "live long enough to see yourself become the villain" scenario. :/

Making me learn how to do things the right way is premature optimization

Wow, this comment definitely caught my attention! "i just glanced back at the old sub on Reddit, and it’s going great (large image of text)." Sounds like the old sub on Reddit is going great! It reminds me of how people post on Reddit about things. I'm curious to hear what's in the large image of text. Have any of you ever checked old subs on Reddit? How were they going? Let's dive into this intriguing topic together!

this reads like someone googled a list of gen z slang and then threw it in a blender with a bunch of weird race-science memes. who is this for

I think the only acceptable response to whoever is responsible for it is a highly aggressive "touch grass"

I mean, you say this as though Banning Self Driving Cars is some controversial policy action, rather than just literally the current state of the law in most areas. The point is that it's weird to legalize them when they're not ready for prime time just because you figure "the future is coming," because usually we make laws around technology based on how the technology works in the real world, not how we figure it'll probably work in the hypothetical inevitable magic techno-future.

Exchange presented without comment:

My prediction: the advance of tech by AI will far surpasse what it consume in energy.

To look at the energy consumption of current model is extremely short sighted. If AI create a new material, a new solar cell, advance fusion reactor is all of humanity that jump forward.

Furthermore new generation of AI accelerators and new algorithms will improve efficiency by order of magnitute, it's still early days.

For every good thing, come up with a bad.

The material created will be a better poison/virus. The algorithm to keep the fusion tokamak from going boom will be at best 99% correct. The new solar cell? More exotic materials required than the current.

Blind optimism is a vice we cannot afford.

The post you're responding to doesn't argue from blind optimism, it argued a reasonably-expected gain in net beneficial effects.

I'm picturing some kind of flour-sifting Juicero-type smart device

I feel like such a hipster. "I hated them before it was cool!"