Besides, you really don’t need to zoom in on “but muh license agreement” to roast these AI turds.
They’re very clear: We’re gonna put creatives out of work, we’re gonna sell a unified product to replace them, and we’re gonna use their own labor to build their replacements.
That’s anticompetitive.
Nail em on that instead of trying to thread the needle on reining in the tech lords without damaging e.g. linguistic analysis researchers.
We’re gonna put creatives out of work, we’re gonna sell a unified product to replace them, and we’re gonna use their own labor to build their replacements.
Yes, but: it’s short sighted, and wrong. Until we have a sea change in the LLM/AGI space, “creatives” will be needed for seed data. LLMs that are recursively trained on their own output degrade and produce worse output over time.
The “yes” part is that companies looking to replace paying people for their work, but still hoping that Creative Commons types are still posting online for free harvesting.
Aren’t MP3s just a statistical correlation?
Besides, you really don’t need to zoom in on “but muh license agreement” to roast these AI turds.
They’re very clear: We’re gonna put creatives out of work, we’re gonna sell a unified product to replace them, and we’re gonna use their own labor to build their replacements.
That’s anticompetitive.
Nail em on that instead of trying to thread the needle on reining in the tech lords without damaging e.g. linguistic analysis researchers.
Yes, but: it’s short sighted, and wrong. Until we have a sea change in the LLM/AGI space, “creatives” will be needed for seed data. LLMs that are recursively trained on their own output degrade and produce worse output over time.
The “yes” part is that companies looking to replace paying people for their work, but still hoping that Creative Commons types are still posting online for free harvesting.
The tools exist for creatives to use.