ori_b

First, prove you're not an AI, and then we can discuss whether being able to generate AI output indistinguishable from human output can cause harm.

Yeah, exactly, they're right, we're successfully making shit worse. Yay us.

We get it. AI slop is getting good enough to replace photography. This isn't good for humans, and makes the world a worse place.

The fact that the suck machine works isn't something to be proud of.

No. I think AI companies consume the result of intellectual work that should typically be paid for. If someone doesn't believe intellectual work should be paid for so that others can benefit, I invite them to lead the way.

That would be my preference, but if people really want to have free as in beer access to information, we can have that conversation. After these companies give people money for the commons that they're strip mining.

If you believe information deserves to be free, and if most of your earnings were from information that wasn't given away for free -- well, if you want people to give up their ill gotten gains, maybe you can start by setting an example.

So, mind sending me your bank account information? I'll promise to make good use of it.

Yes, the Anthropic settlement is far too small to distribute fairly. It seems like you think this makes the action that lead to this settlement justified?

Let's have that conversation after the people strip mining the livelihoods of creators cough up for UBI.

Good question. How many people that you know are in all three groups?

You mean human office workers, no?

If you want a modicum more job security, get hired to deliver packages for Amazon.

But we're all in on making it that way!

There's a reason that among Americans, telekinesis and creationism are more mainstream positions than sloptimism.

About 14% of Americans think AI is moving us towards a better world. About 17% are creationists. About 26% believe in Telekinesis.