Discussion
I'm sorry to be cantankerous about this, but I strongly disagree with the assertion that there is no way to use "AI" (LLMs) ethically.
I've been trying not to talk about this until I had all my ducks in a row, but... that statement crossed some line for me, and I felt compelled to push back (in whatever small way this side-toot constitutes pushback).
@fullywoolly I think it lies somewhere between "very negative take set within a specific context or set of contexts" (acceptable) and "absolutist take which specifically disallows any room for exception or remediation" (unacceptable).
@woozle I can appreciate trying to define a grey area but do you have examples of the thresholds?
I can see that the absolutist position gives no quarter, but I'm quite unclear what you mean with the first one.
@fullywoolly This is what I meant about waiting until I had my ducks in a row...
I will try not to make this a huge ramble. It's a complicated subject, with many large areas of ethical clarity.
For examples of ethical clarity, the following are straight-up unacceptable:
This is not an exhaustive list.
Does that help answer your question?
I'm almost finished with this "book" - it's not for public consumption, please.
@tuban_muzuru I'm not even sure what to make of that...
@woozle where do you feel this ethical boundary is?