| You aren't wrong in the slightest, apart from that you've gotten the implication that I'm here for a debate. I'm not. I've been having this debate since the StableDiffusion blow up at the mid-ish of 2023. I've read these points restated by countless pro-AI people and refuted them probably dozens of times at this point, here and elsewhere, always ending in a similar deadlock where they just stop replying, either because they're sick of me, or I've "won" for whatever that means in the context of online discussion. Nevertheless I'm always open to be persuaded by actual arguments, and I have on numerous issues, but I have yet to see any convincing refutations on these points I've outlined here regarding primarily, but not limited to: - The unethical sourcing of training data - The exploitation of lesser-privileged workers in managing it - The harm being done and the harm that will be done to various professions if they become standard And not mentioned in this thread: - These various firms' superposition between potentially profitable business and "research initiatives," depending if they're trying to get investment or abuse the public square respectively - The exploitative/disgusting/disinformative things these AI's are being used to produce to a society already saturated with false information and faked imagery But these discussions usually dead end, like I said, when the other person stops answering or invokes the "well if we don't build it someone will" which is also unpersuasive. Relating specifically to your point about wanting to change someones mind: in my first comment I do feel I put out an olive branch with empathy for being excited about a new thing. But when the new thing in question is so saturated from beginning to end in questionable ethics... I'm sorry there's only so much empathy I can extend. If you (not you specifically, but you as the theoretical person) are the kind of person ready to associate with this technology at this stage, when it's foibles and highly dubious origins are so well known, then I'm not overly interested in assuaging your feelings. This person came into this thread bemoaning the fact that so many people are calling them out on this and they're sick of it, and like, there's a great way to stop that happening: stop using the damn technology. I will always extend empathy, but if your position is whining about people rightfully, IMO, pointing out that you are using unethical tech and you wish they'd stop? Like, sorry not sorry man, maybe you shouldn't use it then. Then you get less yelled at and a clear conscience. Win/win. But I do appreciate the reply all the same, to be clear. You aren't wrong. I've just had this argument too much, but also don't feel I can really stop. |
My general experience on Hacker News is that threads rarely go beyond one or two replies, so I'll often tap out on the assumption that the other party isn't likely to actually read/respond to any thread more than a couple days old. As far as I know, there's not any indicator when someone replies to your comments, unless you go and check manually?
If I'm just using the site wrong, do please let me know!
Otherwise, I'd suggest you might want to update from "sick of me" to "never saw the reply due to the format of the site". For what it's worth, it took me a while to adjust to that