I bought a datacenter GPU that doesn't fit in a normal motherboard, macgyvered the fan with jumper wires, and now I'm running a model that ties with Claude Sonnet 4.6 on benchmarks, all for £200.
Justification of what? Using the incredible technology created via the shared culmination of all human knowledge, on personally owned hardware, using clean, renewable energy? What needs to be justified in that?
I was talking about using AI as a tool during software development, always have been. You, and others, are determined to turn it into a discussion about the ethics of data centers. You’re not discussing the usefulness of AI as a tool to developers, you’re instead distorting the conversation to a tangent, blaming me for it, and you know it.
I was talking about using AI as a tool during software development, always have been.
Same as us. I guess. I’ve only been following our thread between the two of us, so I can’t speak for others. But yeah, that’s what I’ve also been talking about?
You’re not discussing the usefulness of AI as a tool to developers,
No, I’m not, because that’s not what we disagree on, first of all… 🤷♂️
You, and others, are determined to turn it into a discussion about the ethics of data centers.
Yes, second of all, because those are the most pressing and disturbing and important and urgent aspects in all of AI, the ethics. Of course they are, why wouldn’t they be. Nothing is as interesting or important as they are. Nothing!
And I’m not blaming you for anything. No need to play a victim. We’re having a discussion. 👍 You’re okay.
A good amount without their consent yeah. You tried to justify it earlier in the comment chain by saying it’s not an exact reproduction and that the cat’s already out of the bag, which is what ai bros typically say to cope with that aspect.
You don’t need consent to learn from something, yeah? Or do artists need consent to learn by watching their movies? Do authors need consent to learn by reading books? It’s machine LEARNING, not machine copying.
Then, I guess if a course or material owner agrees with your logic, and have a complaint then they should file a lawsuit and let the legal process carry out. In my own judgement, nothing unethical occurred and complaints such as your own are nonsensical. It’s like complaining that someone in a painting looks like you, and you know the painter has seen you before, so the painting must therefore be based on a sighting of you in public, and you demand restitution for unwittingly being their inspiration without giving them your consent to inspire them. Arguing that the painter should have contacted you, and sought permission to be inspired by your public appearance.
Let’s say your comment isn’t facetious, and you actually believe this is a reasonable thing to request… You believe that the original LLM creators should have contacted each and every person on the Internet, tracked every single poster down, and got them to sign a consent form allowing the information they had already made publicly available to be used to educate a large language model? You believe that is both reasonable and feasible?
It’s the same completely reasonable standards we hold for everybody else? I am just as curious as you are. Does the fact that “‘not guzzling all the information and media from people who specifically don’t want them to’ is such a difficult and infeasible proposition that they can’t possibly honor it” not set off any alarm bells for you? morally?
No, because the information does not disappear. It is not gone. It is unchanged. The availability is the same before, as after. The number of people with access to the information “guzzled” is unaffected. I don’t know how many different ways to say “it doesn’t matter” there are.
Justification of what? Using the incredible technology created via the shared culmination of all human knowledge, on personally owned hardware, using clean, renewable energy? What needs to be justified in that?
That’s not the scenario we’re complaining about and you know it.
I was talking about using AI as a tool during software development, always have been. You, and others, are determined to turn it into a discussion about the ethics of data centers. You’re not discussing the usefulness of AI as a tool to developers, you’re instead distorting the conversation to a tangent, blaming me for it, and you know it.
Same as us. I guess. I’ve only been following our thread between the two of us, so I can’t speak for others. But yeah, that’s what I’ve also been talking about?
No, I’m not, because that’s not what we disagree on, first of all… 🤷♂️
Yes, second of all, because those are the most pressing and disturbing and important and urgent aspects in all of AI, the ethics. Of course they are, why wouldn’t they be. Nothing is as interesting or important as they are. Nothing!
And I’m not blaming you for anything. No need to play a victim. We’re having a discussion. 👍 You’re okay.
A good amount without their consent yeah. You tried to justify it earlier in the comment chain by saying it’s not an exact reproduction and that the cat’s already out of the bag, which is what ai bros typically say to cope with that aspect.
You don’t need consent to learn from something, yeah? Or do artists need consent to learn by watching their movies? Do authors need consent to learn by reading books? It’s machine LEARNING, not machine copying.
Yes, courses and materials coming with terms and conditions for its use is not really a new concept for most reasonable people.
Then, I guess if a course or material owner agrees with your logic, and have a complaint then they should file a lawsuit and let the legal process carry out. In my own judgement, nothing unethical occurred and complaints such as your own are nonsensical. It’s like complaining that someone in a painting looks like you, and you know the painter has seen you before, so the painting must therefore be based on a sighting of you in public, and you demand restitution for unwittingly being their inspiration without giving them your consent to inspire them. Arguing that the painter should have contacted you, and sought permission to be inspired by your public appearance.
Yeah, I already got the impression that you didn’t give a shit about the consent side from your earlier posts.
Let’s say your comment isn’t facetious, and you actually believe this is a reasonable thing to request… You believe that the original LLM creators should have contacted each and every person on the Internet, tracked every single poster down, and got them to sign a consent form allowing the information they had already made publicly available to be used to educate a large language model? You believe that is both reasonable and feasible?
It’s the same completely reasonable standards we hold for everybody else? I am just as curious as you are. Does the fact that “‘not guzzling all the information and media from people who specifically don’t want them to’ is such a difficult and infeasible proposition that they can’t possibly honor it” not set off any alarm bells for you? morally?
No, because the information does not disappear. It is not gone. It is unchanged. The availability is the same before, as after. The number of people with access to the information “guzzled” is unaffected. I don’t know how many different ways to say “it doesn’t matter” there are.