My view is that university classes should be taught in such a way that students can use AI as much or as little as they desire in order to learn the material. Evaluation should primarily be done in the classroom without access to AI. 90% of the grade in my undergraduate course comes from in-person exams. I don't care how they learned the material. This can be a problem for composition classes, for instance, but the problem existed long before the chatbots.
> AI is actually a giant material infrastructure with huge demands for energy, water and concrete, while the supply chain for specialised computer chips is entangled with geopolitical conflict. It also means that the AI industry will beg, borrow and steal, or basically just steal, all the text, images and audio that it can get its spidery hands on.
Sure. We don't know yet how the economics will play out. We don't know the actual cost of LLM and other AI services, we only know what companies are currently charging for them, but they're competing for mindshare so the prices are most definitely being held low. To a large extent, the whole thing has demonstrated what can be done in the short-term in the absence of copyright restrictions, and now we have to see the long-term effects of the removal of copyright restrictions.
I agree with many of the points in the article but don't understand how that turns into a recommendation to "resist".