Can we as a group agree to stop upvoting "AI is great" and "AI sucks" posts that don't make novel, meaningful arguments that provoke real thought? The plagiarism argument is thin and feels biased, the lock-in argument is counter to the market dynamics that are currently playing out, and in general the takes are just one dude's vibes.

▲

pixelmelt 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I dunno, I enjoyed reading about how the author personally feels about the act of working with them more then the whole "is this moral" part.

▲

gwern 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't know, this one is a little novel. I've never seen the developer of a Buddhist meditation app discuss whether to use LLMs with a paragraph like:

> Pariyatti’s nonprofit mission, it should be noted, specifically incorporates a strict code of ethics, or sīla: not to kill, not to steal, not to engage in sexual misconduct, not to lie, and not to take intoxicants.

Not a whole lot of Pali in most LLM editorials.

	▲	akoboldfrying 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> not to engage in sexual misconduct I must remember to add this quality guarantee to my own software projects. My software projects are also uranium-free.

▲

ares623 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The plagiarism argument is thin and feels biased

are you being serious with this one

▲

CuriouslyC 3 hours ago | parent [-]

If you're already sold on the plagiarism narrative that big entertainment is trying to propagandize in order to get leverage against the tech companies, nothing I say is going to change your mind.

	▲	KittenInABox 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't really know what you mean by "big entertainment" trying to get leverage against tech companies. Tech companies are behemoths. Most of the artists I know fretting about AI don't earn half a junior engineer's salary. And this is coming from someone who is relatively bullish on AI. I just don't think the framing of "big entertainment" makes any sense at all.

▲

bronlund an hour ago | parent | prev [-]