[Joel_Mckay]

Let me fix your logical fallacy of composition:

" * Excitement from people who are able to [unaccountably plagerize] things they could not,

* Fear from people who's [business IP rights] are threatened,

* [overt copyright theft from] artists [and chat bot users] whose work is being ripped off,

* [well funded denigration of] activists looking out for ecosystems & the climate. "

Thankfully LLM are not real "AI", and modern hapless 'slavery with extra steps' plans will eventually end badly. Popcorn and bubble infrastructure liquidation fund standing by... =3

[adamtaylor_13]

Why do people insist on using extreme rhetoric like this? If you don't personally like using LLMs, that's fine. The only point this comment serves is to stir the pot.

Using your first example, if it was true and universally accepted that this was plaigerism--we wouldn't use it, now would we? But that's not the universal opinion so instead you're just twisting someone else's comment to stir the pot.

Again, if you don't personally like LLMs and you personally feel like it's plagiarism cool, don't use them. Or at least make an argument for it.

But as it stands, this comment is just low-effort trolling.

[es15x]

Joel_Mckay is responding to a glib comment that sugarcoats and trivializes the theft. Just like you do.

People need to be reminded of reality in their newspeak bubble.

[adamtaylor_13]

Re-stating an opinion does not somehow establish it as a fact. I'd welcome an effort to support what you're saying instead of just hand-waving this as some sort of self-evident fact of the universe.

[Joel_Mckay]

Most of OpenAI CEO rhetoric doesn't hold up to even cursory reason.

"People talk about how much energy it takes to train an AI model - but it also takes a lot of energy to train a human. It takes about 20 years of life - and all the food you consume during that time - before you become smart." (Sam Altman)

Let us take a worst case upper favorable estimate of his flippant statement:

Adult Human peak power W: 600

Average U.S. home yearly kWh: 10500

20 Years = 7300 Days = 175200 Hours

Human_metabolic_kWh = 105120

Home_shelter_kWh = 210000

Total_20Y_Human_Life_kWh = 315120

US average electricity cost is @17.65¢/kWh, and according to sources the LLM models took “1.2 million kWh for older foundational models to upwards of 11 billion kWh for next-generation frontiers". So if true that means:

1200000 kWh = $211,800 USD

11000000000 kWh = $1,941,500,000 USD

In other metrics that means we know:

1200000 kWh trained LLM = 4 Human lives reallocated

11000000000 kWh trained LLM = 34907 Human lives reallocated

Sam claiming 34907 Human lives is a small price to pay for a 85% accurate nonsense machine is ridiculous hyperbolic nonsense, and or the data they are publishing is inaccurate.

People have a right to be displeased with the industry dismissing peoples concerns. =3

[fgqwt]

Why would people feed a sealion?

[Joel_Mckay]

> Why do people insist on using extreme rhetoric like this?

I simply narrowed the logical specificity of why LLM may be avoided in some use cases. No one can 100% prevent theft, as some people will decide personal desperation excuses philosophical compromises. It differs from a sociopath anti-social behavior, which is a constant aspect of civilizations. People can choose to be upset, or recognize it is a facet of some in "AI" gilded blitzscaling.

LLM are good at context search, and have other tangible use-cases that does not require constantly stealing from other people.

Have a wonderful day, =3

[adamtaylor_13]

You claimed to "fix a logical fallacy" by merely stating your opinion that this is theft. Many (most?) disagree with the premise that using an LLM is somehow tantamount to theft.

I invited you to attempt to present an argument, which you have neatly side-stepped.

[Joel_Mckay]

That is a long conversation, but one is welcome to watch a short documentary on the subject. =3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyQwAhppWj8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERiXDhLHxmo

[robbiewxyz]

This rephrasing is directly unhelpful to the goal of empathy for the humans caught in the change. If we come off as insensitive we will have no hope of influencing people. Also if you see a specific fallacy, please do name which one so I can improve.

All that said, I personally unequivocally agree with each of your points. I hope you are channeling this rage not only into comments sections but also into the hard work of tearing down & replacing the many incumbent systems that plagerize, denigrate, steal, oppress, monopolize, waste, & enslave. I certainly am.

[Joel_Mckay]

"This rephrasing is directly unhelpful" is an Informal fallacy.

One does not need to "unequivocally agree", as facts should be verifiable. =3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ

[robbiewxyz]

Sorry to ask again but which informal fallacy does it seem to you that I am using in my first statement? There are several [0]. In the interest of understanding, maybe I can make my passive phrasing a bit more active: when I say "this rephrasing is directly unhelpful [to] empathy", I could also say "if I tended to use the phrasing you did I am confident I would find myself with a reputation for being unempathetic i.e. rude". If you disagree with the statement it'd be great to hear your argument, but again disagreement does not imply fallacy.

Your second statement strikes me as using two specific fallacies while also being severely out of touch. First, a moralistic fallacy [1] where you assert what facts "should" be while making a statement about what is or is not needed. Second, a false equivalence fallacy [2] where you imply without explanation that verifiability & not-needing-agreement are equivalent. I'm open to argument, but it seems to me that the two describe independently varying spaces: facts describing the space of reality with agreement describing alignment in the space of conviction. Finally, your overall statement is very strange to hear in the big 2026 when so many important & verifiable facts are so widely & disastrously disagreed upon. See the ongoing USA vaccine safety scare & measles outbreak as an example [3].

Finally, pointing to general & easily-accessible resources in response to a specific question is normally understood to be condescending & a form of insult. I'm not sure if you meant it that way but graciously declining to answer is almost always a better alternative.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy, see paragraph 2.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moralistic_fallacy#Moralistic_..., the last example specifically names should-is equivalency.

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measles_resurgence_in_the_Unit...

I hope to hear from you but either way this will be my last reply here.

[Joel_Mckay]

That is an unfortunate detractor, as I normally do hold well-reasoned arguments in high regard.

Generally, being flippant with others pAIn while ignoring their legitimate grievances is not kind. We should also not get emotional over discounted GPU hardware when the LLM bubble inevitably collapses. =3