Intentionally or not, you are presenting a false equivalency.
I trust in your ability to actually differentiate between the machine learning tools that are generally useful and the current crop of unethically sourced "AI" tools being pushed on us.
I trust in your ability to actually differentiate between the machine learning tools that are generally useful and the current crop of unethically sourced "AI" tools being pushed on us.
LLMs are approximately right. That means they're sometimes wrong, which sucks. But they can do things for which no 100% accurate tool exists, and maybe could not possibly exist. So take it or leave it.
No, but the companies have agencies. LLMs lie, and they only get fixed when companies are sued. Close enough.
Not going to go back and forth on thos as you inevitably try to nitpick "oh but the chatbot didn't say to do that"
It kind of is that clear. It's IP laundering and oligarchic leveraging of communal resources.
2. Open source models exist.
The only thing worse than intellectual property is a special exception for people rich enough to use it.
I have hope for open source models, I use them.
I think there is ethical use cases for LLMs. I have no problem leveraging a "common" corpus to support the commons. If they weren't over-hyped and almost entirely used as extensions of the weath-concentration machine, they could be really cool. Locally hosted llms are kinda awesome. As it is, they are basically just theft from the public and IP laundering.
You can be among a a swamp and say "but my corner is clean". This is the exact opposite of the rotten barrel metaphor. You're trying to claim your sole apple is so how not rotted compared to the fermenting that is came from.