so we're trusting the guy who created tech to make it easier for bots to exist on the internet to then sell us the solution to fix the problem he made worse?

▲

llbbdd 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've seen this take a lot and I don't really understand it. IMO if there's anybody to blame here, and I don't think there is, you could go back and assign blame to the authors of the Attention is All You Need paper, or Google as its publisher.

Once that was out in the wild it was only a matter of time before someone productized it, but there was no conceivable world in which nobody decided to, and there was no guarantee that it was going to be public in all cases. The basis for LLMs is so simple in hindsight that it's not even impossible that it'd been independently discovered and privately weaponized for many years before 2017.

▲

demorro 10 hours ago | parent [-]

> Once that was out in the wild it was only a matter of time before someone productized it, but there was no conceivable world in which nobody decided to...

By this logic, we cannot blame anyone who is the agent of anything that we deem to be inevitable. Just because it is eventually going to happen, that means you are completely non-culpable for being the person who does it. This could obviously be extended into justifying pretty much anything.

	▲	llbbdd 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah but I think that's precisely what makes it fuzzier than a zero-sum blame game. Given that this technology was going to be in public hands no matter what, the how matters more than condemning the first visible target. Instead of ChatGPT, the first wide use of this tech could have been a private endeavor to secretly kill the internet. The fact that anyone can see and use it, and learn it's hallmarks, arguably helps innoculate some of the populace against the worst things it could be used for. We're able to sit around and complain that the discourse has been poisoned by robots instead of blindly wondering why otherwise-indistinguishable fellow humans are all saying "delve" suddenly. I'm not sure I have a specific point here other than that I think it's interesting that he became a target, not necessarily that he's actually blameless.

▲

HSO 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

he didnt create anything

	▲	stefan_ 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ironically, of the only thing he did create (ostensibly), a copycat never went anywhere "social network", its claim to fame was the app (preinstalled by paying carriers) spamming your entire contact book with SMS invitations to join their failing network. Splendid privacy record!

▲

wmf 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I guess it would be worse if he was doing nothing to address the problem.

	▲	estimator7292 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Incorrect. Completely and utterly. Trying to make money on selling the solution to the problem you caused (while also probably tracking literally everyone with the solution) is much worse than causing the problem and doing nothing about it.

▲

Teever 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I saw someone in another thread put it quite succinctly:

Shit in the pool then sell the nets to clean it up.