@pluralistic are you OK?
Or gave you refined your views on LLM ethics with the help of a 5 hour conversation with ChatGPT?
Discussion
Loading...
Post
@MrBerard I have never had a 'conversation' with a chatbot. Why would you ask?
@pluralistic
Because it seems a failure to read the room to equate rejection of foundation models on ethical grounds to be a 'neo liberal purity' drive?
Because whilst distinguishing training from use as regards copyright is meaningful nuance, it completely occludes the fact that use was made widely available before the conditions of training were known?
@MrBerard I'm sorry I still don't understand. What does that have to do with having a 'conversation' with an llm?
(Perhaps you don't know this but a computer program cannot converse)
Also, what does reading a room have to do with whether something is correct?
It sounds like you're saying people disagree with you, then you must be wrong, irrespective of the substance?
I'm going to read past the disingenuous, patronising socratic questioning here.
I agree it isn't a conversation. This was a slur as your recent points where somehow surprising, out of character, seemingly, for many, as if they were the product of a Chat it delusion spiral.
This wasn't a god joke to start with, it doesn't get better with an explanation.
@MrBerard on the copyright question, first, the question of whether a technology is lawful emphatically does not turn on how it is advertised. The foundational case here is betamax, where it was undisputed that Sony advertised the first VCRs for infringing purposes and the court found that nevertheless the devices were lawful.
@MrBerard secondly, I don't think arguing that you don't like something because of the intent of its maker is the defense against the charge of purity culture that you think it is.
@MrBerard finally, there's no evidence that llms themselves were invented for infringing purposes, nor that every person who has made an alline had infringement in mind. Again, the idea that no one should use a technology if anyone involved with an adjacent technology had bad intent is not the defense of a charge of purity culture you think it is.
4 more replies (not shown)