1 Boost
0 Likes
RE: https://beige.party/@fuzzy/117368611384243650
@SteveClough too blunt.
It does not remove those parts.
You fail to see positive purposes.
Sigh.
If you must portray yourself as Schrödinger's cat: please try to think out of the box in which you choose to constrain yourself.
#AI #deafness #tinnitus #Mastodon #blocklist #Anthropic #Claude #Sonnet
Cc @Nerde
☑️ Employment
☑️ Environmental
☑️ Other: copyright (of training material & output)
☑️ Other: legality of training source material
☑️ Other: clear, repeated evidence of skill-attrition in folks who use it
☑️ Other: driving up hardware costs
So if it *didn't* impact the environment or employment, and had legally-acquired training data, and had clear copyright status of the output material/transformation, didn't drive up the prices of all the available RAM/GPU/Disk/CPU on the market, AND was used responsibly rather than in ways that dumb folks down…yeah, I guess I might be able to support it. 😛
@gumnos
I believe the copyright issue isn’t an AI problem, it’s an enforcement/corruption problem
there are two conflicting sides of the copyright problem. If AI corps are slurping in copyrighted content and producing output based on that input, then either ① it's a way to do LLM-washing, so it would theoretically be legit to have an LLM ingest source-code to Windows or Photoshop or the Disney corpus of works and generate copyright-clean output, or ② it's a copyright violation and all the current LLM output produces a huge liability for existing AI companies and they can't launder Open Source/Copyleft code-bases' licenses away.
A legal decision will make a headache for powerful parties either way.
Tips from scientists about conscious use of AI - NCAS
https://ncas.ac.uk/conscious-use-of-ai-practical-tips-and-thoughts-from-environmental-researchers/
– National Centre for Atmospheric Science, September 2025
@Nerde I am against it because it removes the learning and knowledge acquisition parts of the process.
It is environmentally destructive for a negative purpose. Sigh.