This is a subject that people (understandably) have strong opinions on. Debates get heated sometimes and yes, some individuals go on the attack. I never post anything with the expectation that no one is going to have bad feelings about it and everyone is just going to hold hands and sing a song.

There are hard conversations that need to be had regardless. All sides of an argument need to be open enough to have it and not just retreat to their own cushy little safe zones. This is the Fediverse, FFS.

I have never once said that AI is bad. Literally everything I’ve argued pertains to the ethics and application of AI. It’s reductive to call all arguments critical of how AI is being implemented “AI bad”.

It’s not even about it being disruptive, though I do think discussions about that are absolutely warranted. Experts have pointed to potentially catastrophic “disruptions” if AI isn’t dealt with responsibly, and we are currently anything but responsible in our handling of it. It’s unregulated, running rampant and free everywhere claiming to be all things for all people, leaving a mass of problems in its wake.

If a specific individual or company is committed to behaving ethically, I’m not condemning them. A major point to understand is that those small, ethical actors are the extreme minority. The major players, like those you mentioned, are titans. The problems they create are real.

Not all problems may be cured immediately. Battles are rarely won with a single attack. A good thing is not the same as nothing.

He’s jumping ship because it’s destroying his ability to eke out a living. The problem isn’t a small one, what’s happening to him isn’t a limited case.

For instance

I agree with you that there can be value in “showing people that views outside of their likeminded bubble[s] exist”. And you can’t change everyone’s mind, but I think it’s a bit cynical to assume you can’t change anyone’s mind.

From what I’ve heard, the influx of AI data is one of the reasons actual human data is becoming increasingly sought after. AI training AI has the potential to become a sort of digital inbreeding that suffers in areas like originality and other ineffable human qualities that AI still hasn’t quite mastered.

I’ve also heard that this particular approach to poisoning AI is newer and thought to be quite effective, though I can’t personally speak to its efficacy.

“Public” is a tricky term. At this point everything is being treated as public by LLM developers. Maybe not you specifically, but a lot of people aren’t happy with how their data is being used to train AI.

Is the only imaginable system for AI to exist one in which every website operator, or musician, artist, writer, etc has no say in how their data is used? Is it possible to have a more consensual arrangement?

As far as the question about ethics, there is a lot of ground to cover on that. A lot of it is being discussed. I’ll basically reiterate what I said that pertains to data rights. I believe they are pretty fundamental to human rights, for a lot of reasons. AI is killing open source, and claiming the whole of human experience for its own training purposes. I find that unethical.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m absolutely glad to have good-faith discussions about these things. People have different points of view, and I certainly don’t know everything. It’s one of the reasons I post, for discussion. It’s really unproductive to make blanket statements that try to end discussion before it starts.

I think you’d probably have to hide out under a rock to miss out on AI at this point. Not sure even that’s enough. Good luck finding a regular rock and not a smart one these days.

AI companies could start, I don’t know- maybe asking for permission to scrape a website’s data for training? Or maybe try behaving more ethically in general? Perhaps then they might not risk people poisoning the data that they clearly didn’t agree to being used for training?

Your engagement on this issue is still clearly in bad faith. It reads like a common troll play where they attempt to draw a mark down a rabbit hole.

Understand that I don’t play these games. This is me leaving you to your checkerboard. Take care.

[Edited for grammar and brevity]

A very nuanced and level-headed response, thank you.

While there are some linked sources, the author fails to specify what kind of AI is being discussed or how it is being used in the classroom.

One of the important points is that there are no consistent standards or approaches toward AI in the classroom. There are almost as many variations as there are classrooms. It isn’t reasonable to expect a comprehensive list of all of them, and it’s neither the point nor the scope of the discussion.

I welcome specific and informed counterarguments to anything presented in this discussion, I believe many of us would. I frankly find it ironic how lacking in “nuance or level-headed discussion” your own comment seems.

This is also the kind of thing that scares me. I think people need to seriously consider that we’re bringing up the next wave of professionals who will be in all these critical roles. These are the stakes we’re gambling with.

They need to stick the landing. America will threaten and bully. I’ve also heard some are afraid of the cost and complexity of doing something like this. Hopefully they do realize the necessity of it and stay the course despite all of that.

One of Big Tech’s pitches about AI is the “great equalizer” idea. It reminds me of their pitch about social media being the “great democratizer”. Now we’ve got algorithms, disinformation, deepfakes, and people telling machines to think for them and potentially also their kids.

Great to get the perspective of someone who was in education.

Still, those students who WANT to learn will not be held back by AI.

I think that’s a valid point, but I’m afraid that it’s making it harder to choose to learn the “old hard way” and I’d imagine fewer students deciding to make that choice.