Well, let's see about the evidence, shall we? OpenAI scraped a vast quantity of content from the internet without consent or compensation to the people that created the content, and leaving aside any conversations about whether copyright should exist or not, if your company cannot make a profit without relying on labour you haven't paid for, that's exploitation.
And then, even though it was obvious from the very beginning that AI could very easily be used for nefarious purposes, they released it to the general public with guardrails that were incredibly flimsy and easily circumvented.
This is a technology that required being handled with care. Instead, its lead proponents are of the "move fast and break things" mentality, when the list of things that can be broken is vast and includes millions of very real human beings.
You know who else thinks humans are basically disposable as long as he gets what he wants? Putin.
So yeah, the people running OpenAI and all the other AI companies are no better than Putin. None of them care who gets hurt as long as they get what they want.
Had OpenAI not released ChatGPT, making it available to everyone (including Russia), there are no indications that Russia would have developed their own ChatGPT. Literally nobody has made any suggestion that Russia was within a hair's breadth of inventing AI and so OpenAI had better do it first. But there have been plenty of people making the entirely valid point that OpenAI rushed to release this thing before it was ready and before the consequences had been considered.
So effectively, what OpenAI have done is start handing out guns to everyone, and is now saying "look, all these bad people have guns! The only solution is everyone who doesn't already have a gun should get one right now, preferably from us!"
AI programs are already dominated by bad actors, and always will be. OpenAI and the other corporations are every bit the bad actors as Russia and China. The difference between Putin and most techbros is as narrow as a sheet of paper. Both put themselves before the planet and everyone else living on it. Both are sociopathic narcissists who take, take, take, and rely on the exploitation of those poorer and weaker than themselves in order to hoard wealth and power they don't deserve.
The metaphoric argument is exactly on point, though: the answer to "bad actors will use it for evil" is not "so everybody should have unrestricted access to this really dangerous thing." Sorry, but in no situation you can possibly devise is giving everyone access to a dangerous tool the correct answer to bad people having access to it.
Just don't complain when the world becomes even more shit than it already is. Open source AIs that rely on scraping content without paying the creator are just as exploitative of workers as corporate AIs doing the exact same thing.
It really is. I'm also not a huge fan of "everyone needs to have access to their own personal open source AI, otherwise only corporations will be able to use it", like somehow the answer to corporations being shit is to give everyone else a greater ability to be shit too. What the world really needs is even more shit!
Ah, the old "the only way to stop a bad person with a gun is for all the good people to have guns" argument.
Were the dictators even working on their own large language models, or do these tools only exist because OpenAI made one and released it to the public before all the consequences had been considered, thus sparking an arms race where everyone felt the need to jump in on the action? Because as far as I can see, ChatGPT being used to spread disinformation is only a problem because OpenAI were too high on the smell of their own arses to think about whether making ChatGPT publicly available was a good idea.
I think demonyms more often come from the place the people are from rather than the leader. Imagine yourself living hundreds or thousands of years ago, and some new people arrive in your village. Chances are, you have no idea who the leader of their original home is - but you have a rough idea of where it is and what you call that area of land. So you refer to them as the "people from Land" or "Landish".
So the question really comes down to where place names come from. When you dig down into the etymology of names, a lot of them have a meaning in whatever language was spoken by the locals at the time it was named, and they're often really simple, referring to literal, physical attributes that can be recognised. Then what happens is the name stays the same even when the rest of the language moves on.
You can also get land areas that become named after the people that live there, creating a circular case where the people are named after the land but the land is named after the people. This is the case for the demonym and toponym for where I live. The place Cornwall roughly means "strangers/foreigners of the horn" or, essentially, "horn with all those weird people in it", where the horn refers to the shape of the land, and the "strangers" part refers to the massive cultural and linguistic difference between the Anglo-Saxons in the south and south-east of England and the Celtic population in the south-west. The demonym "Cornish" therefore directly translates as "from the horn", but since it's also just a shortening of Cornwall (because "Cornwallish" would be a nightmare to say), one could say that "Cornish" is referring to "people from the horn with all those weird people in it".
I imagine if you dig down deep enough into demonyms, you'll find a surprising amount of them ultimately translate to "them weird people that live over there".
Very obnoxious pop-up on that page. No, I am not considering AI generated content, and I really haven't changed my mind on that since the last time you asked me, which was 2 seconds ago.
Turnip Boy Commits Tax Evasion: You play a turnip and you get to commit crimes. The characters are cute, the humour is silly, there are puzzles and bosses. It plays a bit like a Zelda game, I guess, except everyone is a vegetable. It's pretty short - I completed it in about 5 hours, including all the achievements. I should play this again actually.
Spirit of the North: This is such a beautiful game. The best way I can describe this game is Abzu but you're a fox. No dialogue or narration, just you, your spirit companion, and some really gorgeous music. This is also a pretty short game - I was fully complete with all achievements in about 6 hours. I've played this 5 times since I bought it 9 months ago because I love it so much.
Terra Nil: A reverse city-builder, where your goal is to clean up all the pollution on the map, restore plants and wildlife, and then get rid of any traces of your presence. You can play the whole campaign in a few hours, but it took me about 20 hours before I got all the achievements. I've put in almost 50 hours in total, because it is just so chill to play.
This is basically why the largest studio in my county shut down last year. It was considered "insufficiently profitable" by the parent company. Not unprofitable. It was turning a profit and had produced some highly regarded games, including an award winner. It was also a company that treated its employees well, including offering highly flexible working hours and having a dog-friendly office. I'd been eyeing them up because I'd hoped to work there when I got my degree. But nope, they're gone now because they weren't making enough money.
I believe society as a whole should stop idolising the wealthy, and start seeing their inability to be satisfied with having enough money for a comfortable life as the dysfunction it is. Never being satisfied no matter how much money you have should be seen as a problem, not something to aspire to.
While I have gotten fairly proficient with the TV and film high seas, I struggle with games and software, often leaving me uncertain if what I've actually downloaded is a virus.
I'd love to know the stats on the demographics of the pro-Palestinian protestors. Exactly how many American citizens is Trump proposing randomly dumping in another country because he doesn't like what they're saying?
I've played Sims 2 and 3, and generally enjoyed them. I think I would have played both a lot more if they hadn't been prone to such severe performance issues. Especially 3. I was in a better position financially back then, upgrading my PC every 2 years, and somehow even a brand new PC built around gaming performance could not run Sims 3 without severe lagging and stuttering. I tried various mods intended to improve performance, but never really made any headway on the issue. Gave up, haven't tried Sims 4 because the quantity of DLC is huge and expensive.
Well, let's see about the evidence, shall we? OpenAI scraped a vast quantity of content from the internet without consent or compensation to the people that created the content, and leaving aside any conversations about whether copyright should exist or not, if your company cannot make a profit without relying on labour you haven't paid for, that's exploitation.
And then, even though it was obvious from the very beginning that AI could very easily be used for nefarious purposes, they released it to the general public with guardrails that were incredibly flimsy and easily circumvented.
This is a technology that required being handled with care. Instead, its lead proponents are of the "move fast and break things" mentality, when the list of things that can be broken is vast and includes millions of very real human beings.
You know who else thinks humans are basically disposable as long as he gets what he wants? Putin.
So yeah, the people running OpenAI and all the other AI companies are no better than Putin. None of them care who gets hurt as long as they get what they want.