What people like Rob Pike don't understand is that the technology wouldn't be possible at all if creators needed to be compensated. Would you really choose a future where creators were compensated fairly, but ChatGPT didn't exist?

> What people like Abraham Lincoln don't understand is that the technology wouldn't be possible at all if slaves needed to be compensated. Would you really choose a future where slaves were compensated fairly, but plantations didn't exist?

I fixed it... Sorry, I had to, the quote template was simply too good.

"Too expensive to do it legally" doesn't really stand up as an argument.

Unequivocally, yes. There are plenty of "useful" things that can come out of doing unethical things, that doesn't make it okay. And, arguably, ChatGPT isn't nearly as useful as it is at convincing you it is.

Absolutely. Was this supposed to be some kind of gotcha?

Yes, very much so. I am in favour of pushing into the future as fast as we can, so to speak, but I think ChatGPT is a temporary boost that is going to slow us in the long run.

> Would you really choose a future where creators were compensated fairly, but ChatGPT didn't exist?

Yes.

I don't see how "We couldn't do this cool thing if we didn't throw away ethics!" is a reasonable argument. That is a hell of a thing to write out.

Yes, what a wild position to prefer the job loss, devaluation of skills, and environmental toll of AI to open source creators having been compensated in some better manner.

That would be like being able to keep my cake and eat it too. Of course I would. Surely you're being sarcastic?

Very much yes, how can I opt into that timeline?

Uh, yeah, he clearly would prefer it didn’t exist even if he was compensated.

Er... yes? Obviously? What are you even asking?

Yes.

Um, please let your comment be sarcastic. It is ... right?

Yes.

Yes.

Well yeah.

[dead]