| ▲ | judemelancon an hour ago | |
To preemptively clarify, I'm not saying anything about these particular researchers. Having established that, are you saying that you can't even conceptualize a conflict of interest potentially clouding someone's judgement any more if the amount of money and the person's perceived status and skill level all get increased? Disagreeing about the significance of the conflict of interest is one thing, but claiming not to understand how it could make sense is a drastically stronger claim. | ||
| ▲ | tptacek an hour ago | parent | next [-] | |
I'm responding to "the difference isn't meaningful". Obviously, the difference is extremely meaningful. | ||
| ▲ | mpyne an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | |
> Having established that, are you saying that you can't even conceptualize a conflict of interest potentially clouding someone's judgement any more if the amount of money and the person's perceived status and skill level all get increased. If I used AI to make a Super Nintendo soundtrack, no one would treat it as equivalent to Nobuo Uematsu or Koji Kondo or Dave Wise using AI to do the same and making the claim that the AI was managing to make creatively impressive work. Even if those famous composers worked for Anthropic. Yes there would be relevant biases but there could not be a comparison of my using AI to make music slop vs. their expert supervision of AI to make something much more impressive. Just because AI is involved in two different things doesn't make them similar things. | ||