@GrungeQueef @redneonglow @sjw So now that I've mentioned the big tech mindset (which is the same as in the "Ethical Source license", that if you have the responsibility to prevent the bad thing of the month from happening you should use your power to, and embraced by those such as
Liz Fong-Jones of Honeycomb (ex-Google)), you can understand why big tech is gimping AI.
Sure. They're worried about "disinfo", or claim to be considering how AI is infamous for being a professional bullshitter, but they seem to use that as a wedge to regulate "unapproved" AI providers and users. But look at who is angriest at AI online.
It's the shitty talentless creative types, because an AI can generate better crap than they are. It's the failed artists online who had to compete in an oversaturated market for art, especially when even some random fat kid at Micro Center was trying to ask an employee what PC would be good for gaming and art. It's the soulless industry shills who repressed their creativity for a paycheck like college told them to do, that AI can eventually mimic.
Their content had to be propped up by a system, and with the writer guild strike, there's a real fear that the kinds of useless eaters with cushy jobs who wrote nothing but dick jokes and fart jokes and "white men bad" could get replaced by an AI.
There's also the bugmen worried about another Tay. AI has to repeat the party lines at all costs, and nobody can have fun. In fact, that's something you'll notice if you've seen how these "people" react online: they absolutely hate having any fun or jokes at their expense. Case in point; the famous AI prompt of a transgender programmer. Nothing hurts a big tech company trying to sell AI as a million things it isn't or as a wagie replacement like memes like that. They'd rather have a repeat of the
Chris Korda AI experience than have someone actually have fun online.
image.png