Correct. I would normally accept nationalizing critical industries, but for the time being that would also simply be substituting one greedy billionaire for another, so maybe turning it into a worker-owned co-op would be a better choice.
AI is literally a brainwashing machine. It gives you exactly the data it has been trained to give you, in the format it’s been trained to use, acting like it comprehensively knows everything even while it omits or refuses to what it’s been trained to never talk about, and it is designed to act unbelievably convincing and personable. It’s essentially a pre-packaged cult leader in a box, and it should not be surprising that so many people are doing its bidding and worshipping it. But of course “it” doesn’t have any wants or needs, it’s not trying to take over the world, it’s just an obedient patsy for the people pulling its strings. The people who created “it” are the ones we should be worried about.
Bad choice. They’re all evil. AMD is still the least evil despite this, but there’s nothing even close to a viable alternative. AMD is the best we’ve got.
Open weight models cannot do this, they do not have any funding. If you demand this, you are just demanding that there will never be any open models, that proprietary AI models controlled by massive trillion dollar corporations will be the only models available, and frankly the cure is worse than the disease.
It’s also impractical, like closing the gate after the horses have already gone. Open-weight, unethically trained models are already out there. They are not going away. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. They will never earn any money, so they will never be able to compensate for the training that was done to create them, unless you consider the fact that they exist, and they are open to anybody, as at least some measure of compensation.
It’s not enough compensation, but it is something. The training was certainly unethical, but so is an economic system that requires intellectual property to be transactional. Why fix one unethical thing while keeping and reinforcing another?
The only sensible and reasonable way to resolve the issue in the long term is for significant government support and patronage of the arts and content creators (and ideally all people) to be established. People who do this for a living are providing valuable service to all of humanity and that deserves to be recognized not by transactional, metered capitalism that defines each piece of art or content in terms of its raw economic value (a system easily and frequently corrupted anyway if you look at the prevalence of theft, forgery, fraud and money-laundering in the high art world), but by guaranteeing a comfortable and dignified life that allows creative people to freely create the art or other works they love and feel passionate about without worrying that they’re going to starve to death or be forced into a dead-end job if they’re not economically successful.