It's interesting seeing all the ChatGPT users in this thread, knowing what we know about OpenAI. Either they don't care about what OpenAI does, don't know their reputation, or feel like their use is too insignificant to matter.
I also observe exact same pattern in two different countries among experienced IT workers. They mostly don't care at all about any non-tech implications of the services or employees they are using. Creepto, gambling, tax evasion, supporting monopolies, etc. - all fair game.
PS: I'm guilty of the same too, in other areas. But at least I'm selfaware about my transgressions.
Claude is noticeably poor for my use case on this particular issue. That said, I imagine I’m not alone in refusing to continue paying OpenAI. We’re in for a wild ride.
Basically the classical prisoner dilemma. The other devs with less moral can then outperform you.
It could be a valid strategy if you can increase your crediblity with this relinquishment.
But I write this on mostly US forum full of faangs and similar so i dont expect strong agreement.
Never heard of it. The food there good?
> The other devs with less moral can then outperform you.
I long for the days where it’s only my moral compass holding me back.
tl;dr: If you need to pay for LLM for work, at least don't pay to the market leader.
Nerd-sniping as a weapon of oppression
You mean absurdly high compensation for very comfortable, low-stress office work? People work to feed their families, not just because working is 'cool'.
Consider for a moment how different your assumptions are from reality. Can you learn from that?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven
[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/us-dep...
Edit: and to some extent Apple, at least in the past.
All AI players are 50 shades of evil and are only concerned about their profits.
Instead of virtue signaling it's best to use the tools that work best for your needs.
With Project Glasswing for example, I'm impressed at how generally well thought out it is, and very much appreciate that they donate a lot of money to OSS. I would have liked them to extend the Project to smaller players as well, but power centralisation is an inherent problem of AI, not something that is unique to Anthropic.
Do you think people who mention grok creating CSAM is a holier-than-thou attitude? Do you not think the people who ignore that are worse than other people?
Not sure why you felt the need to switch the topic to Grok. About its nudification incident, it seems a bit far stretched to say that malicious actors bypassing its safety controls was not an accident.
Initially, the image features were restricted to paying subscribers to prevent abuse by anonymous actors; this obviously happened while they were tightening safety controls to stop abuse.
If you're going to bring up that old topic, at least try to get the facts straight.
To me it seems a LOT of a stretch to think that the people behind grok belived their safty controls worked, but you can belive that if you wish. Deepfakes of non-consenting adults were trending on X all the time, elon even appears to have shared them himself, which is pretty bad even if they're all just adults, and I'm sure you belive that they belived the AI could tell the difference between an underage person and an adult perfectly, although it seems clear they didn't test it very much.
It's probably never been the case that plurality of views meant anything since online is a bubble to begin with, filtered by endless biases wherever we happen to be reading, making it an even more fringe bubble, but the advent of AI has pushed it all over the edge to the point that perceived pluralities are just completely and utterly meaningless. Somewhat depressing for a one who enjoys online chat as a pasttime, but it's the reality of the world now.
What's a good way to think about this? Because it does cross my mind about the billions of dollars at play - at the same time, I'm not a pessimist. I think my middle ground is kind of just the usual, taking things with a grain of salt. I mean, I chose to reply to this comment in good faith it's human to human, commenter to unpaid/unaffiliated commenter.
I hope I keep that faith. I hope our billions of neighbors on the web enable me to keep that faith over the coming years. Definitely uncertain about the future of the web but want to love it like I've loved it 1990s-today. (Guess I should volunteer w/the EFF while job hunting, try for for-purpose jobs...)
I believe the rule around here is to not assume everyone who disagrees with you or has opinions you don’t understand is a shill. Perhaps there’s a bit of that in the post you replied to, but to me seems mostly about mourning the loss of quality conversations online.
Gotta say, I agree. Not that things were ever great, but it’s really in the crapper now.
And so the cost:reward there was relatively poor leaving it to things like militaries and governments to carry it out for influence campaigns and what not. But LLMs have now completely changed the game. You can easily create an arbitrarily large number of passably believable personas and backstories, autonomously, with no real limitations on scale.
This is obviously going to be abused when the stakes are sufficiently high. And in this case we're talking about a market that these companies likely believe to be worth trillions of dollars. And they can likely even convince themselves that what they're doing isn't immoral pretty easily, in the same way they convinced themselves that letting their software be used to kill people by the all-so-ethical US military is perfectly cool. So why in the world wouldn't they 'inform people of the strengths of their product' on a wide scale?