Sounds a little like "OpenAI must protect itself against copyright infringement by any means necessary, including copyright infringement of everyone else"
If it is the AITA subreddit (or one of many similar ones) it might not be that bad. It is after all dedicated to outrage farming, so there will be many human responses. It is just the original posts that are all baits, and it doesn't really matter if they are made by LLMs or as a creative writing exercise.
Though interestingly, the observed difference in assessment suggests (though does not prove) that sampled AITA posters are not one of these models. I guess it’s possible they have a very different prompt though…
I don't trust anonymous online mudslingers when I've seen the salaries of some of the midlevel AI roles. It all stinks.
Worse yet: this person points to one article he disfavours and uses that as sufficient context to slander. And what is being called mud, on the writer's part, I see as just a little dust.
But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for introspection from that camp. It seems that AI maximalists, like so many other players these days, see it as end-game time. There are no bounds or rules: pick a side, and go. And then eat the rest.
Sure, not everyone sees it this way. There are highly competent, human actors working in their joy toward a better way forward with all of it. But I don't think you'll find that spirit unbridled inside any profit-seeking corporation of any significant standing (though I would be happy to be proven wrong). If it existed there, it is being choked out by selfishness and survivalism.
And then there's Thiel and ilk waxing eschatological, adding a whole other layer to the scheme.
Let's not forget who developed the tooling, platforms, frameworks, libraries and packages and so on that these news companies use.
Nor the development practices that are hoisted as "the way to do things now" that people frantically race to adopt so they are not pushed out of the industry and a fruitful career as "obsolete".
Nor the technology companies that thought they served as a suitable replacement for news and advertising and community boards and used their massive investments to undercut the ability of traditional news outlets to survive, nevermind upstarts to have any hope of competing.
And the haranguing continues as if it was the design of these organizations in the first place.
There's no love lost for the media companies owned by billionaires, but maybe it should be more clear in these discussions exactly who started this particular mess.
reply