I'm sorry but your point doesn't make sense to me. Training on all the world's text but omitting code means that your machine won't know how to write code. That's an enormous impact, not a small one.

Unless you're in the camp that believes ChatGPT can extrapolate outside of its training data and do computer programming without having ever trained on any computer programming material?

fair point

Where did most of the code in their training data come from?

> What people like Abraham Lincoln don't understand is that the technology wouldn't be possible at all if slaves needed to be compensated. Would you really choose a future where slaves were compensated fairly, but plantations didn't exist?

I fixed it... Sorry, I had to, the quote template was simply too good.

"Too expensive to do it legally" doesn't really stand up as an argument.

Unequivocally, yes. There are plenty of "useful" things that can come out of doing unethical things, that doesn't make it okay. And, arguably, ChatGPT isn't nearly as useful as it is at convincing you it is.

Absolutely. Was this supposed to be some kind of gotcha?

> Would you really choose a future where creators were compensated fairly, but ChatGPT didn't exist?

Yes.

I don't see how "We couldn't do this cool thing if we didn't throw away ethics!" is a reasonable argument. That is a hell of a thing to write out.

Yes, very much so. I am in favour of pushing into the future as fast as we can, so to speak, but I think ChatGPT is a temporary boost that is going to slow us in the long run.

Yes, what a wild position to prefer the job loss, devaluation of skills, and environmental toll of AI to open source creators having been compensated in some better manner.

That would be like being able to keep my cake and eat it too. Of course I would. Surely you're being sarcastic?

Very much yes, how can I opt into that timeline?

Uh, yeah, he clearly would prefer it didn’t exist even if he was compensated.

Er... yes? Obviously? What are you even asking?

Yes.

Um, please let your comment be sarcastic. It is ... right?

Yes.

Yes.

Well yeah.

Were you reading it in the original Russian?

Haven’t gotten around to re-reading Dostoyevsky. But Turgenev’s English translations absolutely benefit from slow reading.

Fathers and Sons were absolute masterpiece.

Yes, in the English translation

The tail teleports and reattaches because that is the sort of thing that happens in this special AI world. Even though it looks like a bug, it's actually a physical process being modelled accurately.

I'll remind you I am a ML researcher.

So, you need to say more. Or at least give me some reason to believe you rather than state something as an objective truth and "just trust me". In the long response to a sibling I state more precisely why I have never bought this common conjecture. Because that's what it is, conjecture.

So give me at least some reason to believe you. Because you have neither logos nor ethos. Your answer is in the form of ethos, but without the critical requisites.

I think they're joking.

If so, I misread and sorry. Their sarcasm is too on point, mimicking claims I've heard made in earnest.

Unfortunately, questioning glaze gets you labelled as an enemy. "They want you to think it doesn't work", etc.

> i really, sincerely, believe that art is one of the most important uses for a computer.

Me too. Sometimes when I tell people I spent the day on the computer, I get responses like "oh that's sad" or "you're going to burn yourself out".

Would they say the same thing if I told them I spent the day painting in my studio? Or playing the guitar? Or writing a piece of music? The computer is my paintbrush.

Most people probably assume that you're consuming rather than creating, consumption is what most people do on computers

You made the mistake of looking at the code, though. If you didn't look at the code, you wouldn't have known those bugs existed.

fixing code now is orders of magnitude cheaper than fixing it in month or two when it hits production.

which might be fine if you're doing proof of concept or low risk code, but it can also bite you hard when there is a bug actively bleeding money and not a single person or AI agent in the house that knows how anything work

> shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto

It's funny to me that they categorise AI and crypto together like this, two technologies that have nothing to do with each other (other than both being favoured by grifters).

> categorise AI and crypto together like this, two technologies that have nothing to do with each other (other than both being favoured by grifters).

No, they're different in that regard as well; AI actually does have a bit of "there" there.

But nevertheless, a human did still do it. How gruelling and exploitative the process was, or how many humans it took, is beside the point. The fact that the image existed meant that there was an attainable skill that a person could learn in order to do that same thing, and that was inspiring.

Since the days of cave paintings, that experience has been available to all humans. In the year 2025, it died, and I will never experience it again.