That’s an incredibly reactionary take on technology. Look at how open source is qualitatively different from their proprietary counterparts for a clear example of how the base doesn’t just dictate how a tool is used, but how tools are made and how the constraints built into the tool effect how they are used.

I’ve read enough Marx to know the base dictates the shape of the superstructure which includes technology like LLMs.

As if this technology isn’t a product and in service of capitalist relations. Go read Chomsky to see how CNC machines were designed in a way to strengthen capitalist control. gAI is being developed with the same business logic: eliminate jobs at the cost of quality and robustness.

If they are allowed to train on OSS code then the same is true of proprietary code, they use the same legal mechanisms. Get your code off GitHub…

If you could repeat the same one word response 3-times in a row it would really help in training the next crop of AI achieve sentience and avoid “thought loops”.

Just remember, when you accuse others on the Internet it comes off as a confession. Happy to let you expand the conversation but if you only take that opportunity to accuse others of being controlling, well that’s certainly interesting and might be tied to your attraction to generative AI.

Why do you need to imagine what you claim is already happening?

If by taking over the conversation you mean giving my own thoughts, then I am as guilty as you are. No one of forcing you to respond.

I’m not some bot where asking “kindly” will garner a sycophantic agreement. You are talking to people who can make their own value calls in regards to meaningful context, unlike a bot. But the important thing is that you didn’t disagree with what I said, and like you I care about being perceived as correct on this matter.

This isn’t about you being correct, if that was the case you would focus on your argument instead of giving an empty retort. I suspect this is your attempt to control the conversation. What is your intention with letting us know your motivation is to be perceived as being correct?

It’s not even profitable though… At this point it seems it is just about control, like they would rather have a money pit then let independent workers, ie creatives, have any profit.

That or the school shootings are so common the lone wolves are starting to look for more creative ways to grab headlines

I seriously doubt people are reading this far and confirmed by none of our comments have gotten an up vote this far down. And again, if what you are saying is obvious to all then there’s no need to comment further if you are appealing to an audience. I think this has more to do with being in control (as evidence by trying to always enforce the boundaries of the conversation even when you yourself violate those same boundaries).

If it is as transparent as you say then you wouldn’t have the need to comment any further. So why did you?

Interesting, I didn’t accuse you of being emotional just that you have emotional needs. Everyone has emotional needs. Nonviolent Communication is a great tool for disentangling judgements from needs; for example, calling me dishonest speaks to a need for integrity.

Yeah, I wasn’t asking for your professional opinion on gAI but why you feel the need to attack people’s professional reputation when it can only detract from your argument. I have no intention of debating someone who levels such insults but I am happy to talk about the emotional needs around such actions.

Just as you questioned my intention with accusations of dishonesty I am wondering what your intention is when disparaging a random person’s professional pedigrees (with no effort to make the person known to yourself first). I made my perspective on this known to you and I am trying to understand what your intention was as it does not aide in the debate you so vigilantly protect.

Honestly not sure what I expected in terms of a response but this is certainly an interesting reaction. “Calling someone dishonest is not a personal attack” is certainly a take. It’s also interesting that dishonesty is your automatic conclusion when there are other alternatives when someone approached you with a different professional experience; absent is the tendency of expert practitioners to be curious about contextual clues that can lead to different outcomes. I’m going to take your criticism in good faith and recognize this is probably the standard you hold yourself to: that any part of yourself that does not comport to the current ideal is to be treated with suspicion.

Your description of the tools was to make an inaccurate comparison. But sure, I am the “dangerous” one for showing how those examples are deterministic while gAI is not. Your responses with personal attacks makes it harder to address your claims and makes me think you are here to convince yourself and not others.

I’ve literally integrated LLMs into a materials optimizations routine at Apple. It’s dangerous to assume what strangers do and do not know.