Hacker News Reader

Comment by JieJie | Hacker News Reader

This is an opinion piece published to the News section of The Guardian. Interesting.

I don't see any how for-profit AI is a threat to anything but for-profit art.

However, I do know that printing opinion pieces as news is definitely a threat to journalism.

It's an opinion piece posted in the Technology section. Opinion pieces can be part of sections other than the dedicated op/ed section of a newspaper.

Everything about this piece marks it as opinion (most notable the language used), if that's what you're getting at.

Also, noted below the piece:

> This is an edited version of the Australian Society of Authors 2024 Colin Simpson Memorial Keynote lecture, titled ‘Creative Futures: Imagining a place for creativity in a world of artificial intelligence’

I hear what you're saying, but The Guardian does have an opinion section this could have been printed in, but they chose to print it in Tech. The UX in Firefox for me, I could barely tell it was even in the Tech section, because the font is small and only bolded, where the rest of the menu options are in normal style. The News heading, however, is quite large, and has a strong red underline.

I think I was fair to call this out, and the article has been flagged by others.

I checked. Apparently you can find this in the Opinion section of the Australian edition. Makes sense, given that the author of this piece is an Australian novelist.

I really don't like how this looks like regular news, though. Makes me want to write a plugin, using ChatGPT, to show a pop up whenever you're on a news site, the article is classified as an opinion (or is obviously an opinion piece), yet the webpage does not show it as such.

But nonprofit AI threatens both for-profit and nonprofit art.

Sign me up for non-profit AI.

I'm a strong advocate for a united effort to create a training set of the collected works of mankind free to any AI company to use if, for instance, it uses its profits to fund UBI, or some other program to pay us for what they use.

Anything but AGI profits being used to keep score in the Oligarchy Olympics. I agree that is a bridge too far.

It sounds like you're advocating a robot tax? https://emerj.com/robot-tax-summary-arguments/

"You can use this, except not commercially unless you do such and such" isn't a free license though. Whether it's free matters more than whether it's nonprofit. GNU showed us how software could be for-profit, yet also free.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com