Doesn't even mention the one use case I have a moderate amount of respect for, automatically generating image descriptions for blind people.
And even those should always be labeled, since AI is categorically inferior to intentional communication.
They seem focused on the use case "I don't have the ability to communicate with intention, but I want to pretend I do."
Not sure that any time someone posts cringe on HN counts as a tech take. Maybe we can bring AI into this?
What about, enslaving prisoners is not controversial if an AI is giving the orders, since it's not a person oppressing another person. I'll take my 500M VC now please.
Is "No gods, no masters, no admins" a slogan that people were seriously using? Frankly, I was just taking the piss with that bit.
This isn't a copyright thing. This is a tech regulation thing, that creates the possibility for data protection agencies to stick their noses in AI company's business.
I feel like this has to be built on a lack of appreciation for words as a facilitator of human connection. By finding means of expression and being understood we manage to link our brains together on a conceptual level. By building these skills communally we expand the possible bandwidth of connection and even the range and fidelity of our own thoughts.
This has to be motivated by a view of words as Authoritative Things that sit on shelves and bestseller lists and are authored by Smart And Successful People.