Make intentional, rational, specific decisions about which people and companies to support with your hard earned cash based on alignment of values and interests.
A bike shop or other small retail business brings jobs and benefits to the local community. A data center brings pollution and practically no new permenant jobs or benefits specifically to that community, only to the cloud.
But don't worry about it, this is something an $850/hr consultant is paid to not understand.
Because cities felt the devastating effects when industrial factories staffed with good union jobs went away, and yearn for their carbon copy replacement. These factories had ripple regional advantage effects beyond the factory workers. Armies of teamsters have to drive in and out of town to deliver inputs and outputs for industrial factories, and they all need to eat. Corporate and R&D types used to need to spend more time at the industrial factory. Put a factory in a region and a corporate office often follows. Put enough of them in the same region and you start to get an innovation hub as they all hang out and see each other at third spaces. Universities and innovation hubs mutually benefit and expand when distance matters.
So the industrial factory tax break model often did pay off. Data centers are selling the same story: give us tax breaks for big expensive capital investment and regional prosperity is yours. They often lie about even the direct number of jobs. But the implied regional advantage is definitely dead when it is all cloud and zoom, rather than widgets and happy hours.
It is absolutely infringement if you paint a picture in Ghibli style. You just have fair use to infringe in a personal, noncommercial, educational, etc. purpose.
Fair use is a defense to infringement, like self defense is a defense to homicide. If you infringe but are noncommercial, it is more likely to be ruled fair use. If Disney did a Ghibli style ripoff for their next movie, that is clearly not fair use.
OpenAI is clearly gaining significant material benefits from their models being able to infringe Ghibli style.
> It is absolutely infringement if you paint a picture in Ghibli style.
Of course not because by this twisted logic every piece of art is inspired by what comes before and you could claim Ghibli is just a derivative of what came before and nobody has any copyright then...
Like in 1929 or 1999 everyone knows it is a bubble, but always thinks they're the rational one who can ride the rollercoaster up and time the bubble, then sell before it pops.
It is the same psychology behind meme coins. Everyone knows they are worthless, they gain value because everyone is trying to make everyone else the greater fool holding the bag.
2008 was less a bubble of irrational exhuberance and more a bubble of overvaluation enabled by fraud of bundling bad mortgages into A rated investment products
> We don’t sell your personal data as a source of revenue
What a curiously specific phrase. So if they traded your data to Palantir in exchange for hosting or services, this would still be allowed. The fact that they have another revenue stream says nothing about your data privacy. Or if Thiel has a backdoor to snoop on Silicon Valley's most intimate social networking data.
It is criminal conspiracy, a federal felony in the US, if you contract to commit a crime. Conspiracy is a standalone crime on its own, independent if the contracted crime is never carried out (in breach of contract).
The mob tried your argument generations ago. It never worked.
All you’re encouraging is for users to not acknowledge when they use an LLM. You’ll get the same stuff added to threads. Even now, humans contribute unverified slop to threads too - have we ever had a way of verifying what someone contributes other than the occasional citation?
A solution might be somewhere in the middle. LLMs aren’t going anywhere, and they will only become more invisible.
Good. The shame is the point. If you're going to rely on an LLM, then take ownership over the words you post under your own account. Just posting "this is what the LLM said" with no other content means they take no responsibility for what they say, but still think they are making a contribution.
"Use it as a tool" is always the line from LLM advocates. Okay. If you used a search engine as a tool to find some source, you don't need to say "I used google to find this," you just present the link as your contribution. You found the source. If it is a bad source, you can't get away blaming the search engine. You fucked up the source.
Same with LLMs. If you actually use it as a tool and not an outsourcing of your own role, then you shouldn't need to disclose. But using it as a tool means more than just typing "summarize this for hackernews" and mindlessly copy pasting. If they summarized, validated, and was confident enough in the summary that they felt they didn't need the "I asked an LLM" disclaimer, then that's a contribution. Maybe it is still wrong. As you say, there is a lot of that on the internet.
So yes, we should be shaming those who admit using it to outsource their role. People who want to make contributions when they are completely unqualified to distinguish between a good and bad contribution will learn to hide their use. Good. People who are both attention addicts needing to always make a contribution and who are now cognitive addicts should live their lives in fear over knowing if what they are saying under their own name will get them ridiculed.
