It makes a lot of sense not to chase every trend and hype. It also makes sense not to always strive for the latest thing or to disparage the older (or even the current) version. But beyond that, I cannot follow the author's reasoning.
The author, for one part, jumps from specific instances to sweeping conclusions about all AI systems. For the other part, the author presents an implicit either/or choice between using AI or not using it at all, rather than considering selective or contextual implementation. I'm neither convinced by the energy consumption argument. I think, one should consider the benefit/cost aspect in the proper dimensions. Of course we should not waste, and there is a lot of waste which could be avoided (e.g. travelling physically in times of video conferencing). But - as far as I understand - many of the high AI caused energy consumptions are one-off, whereas e.g. the whole world consuming hight-bandwidth streaming services, even on mobile, is permanent.
For my part, I am generally very selective with offers, whether AI or not, and by no means an early adopter. But the services I subscribe to—e.g., Deepl for language translations, or Perplexity as a general encyclopedia, research assistant, and proofreader—make my work incredibly more efficient. So, assuming that my work has value, the use of AI in this context is obviously the opposite of waste.
The copyright argument doesn't make sense to me either. I'm by no means a communist, but I make most of my work and now all of my musical contributions available to the public for free as open source. And I have no qualms whatsoever about my work being used for AI training. On the contrary, it increases the value of my work. It is usually anti-capitalist arguments that are used to express discontent with the organizations that condense individual contributions on the web into an AI model. Most of the time, these are the same people who have no qualms about receiving any services for free. As with everything, it's all about finding the right balance. I find it much more offensive that large corporations use the copyright or patent rights they have extorted from e.g. authors and composers to gain unfair market dominance without making any significant contribution themselves. The only ones who would benefit from further tightening copyright laws (e.g., making computer-generated works subject to copyright protection in the future) are precisely these corporations, not the little people who are crying out loudly today.
Rochus•9mo ago
The author, for one part, jumps from specific instances to sweeping conclusions about all AI systems. For the other part, the author presents an implicit either/or choice between using AI or not using it at all, rather than considering selective or contextual implementation. I'm neither convinced by the energy consumption argument. I think, one should consider the benefit/cost aspect in the proper dimensions. Of course we should not waste, and there is a lot of waste which could be avoided (e.g. travelling physically in times of video conferencing). But - as far as I understand - many of the high AI caused energy consumptions are one-off, whereas e.g. the whole world consuming hight-bandwidth streaming services, even on mobile, is permanent.
For my part, I am generally very selective with offers, whether AI or not, and by no means an early adopter. But the services I subscribe to—e.g., Deepl for language translations, or Perplexity as a general encyclopedia, research assistant, and proofreader—make my work incredibly more efficient. So, assuming that my work has value, the use of AI in this context is obviously the opposite of waste.
The copyright argument doesn't make sense to me either. I'm by no means a communist, but I make most of my work and now all of my musical contributions available to the public for free as open source. And I have no qualms whatsoever about my work being used for AI training. On the contrary, it increases the value of my work. It is usually anti-capitalist arguments that are used to express discontent with the organizations that condense individual contributions on the web into an AI model. Most of the time, these are the same people who have no qualms about receiving any services for free. As with everything, it's all about finding the right balance. I find it much more offensive that large corporations use the copyright or patent rights they have extorted from e.g. authors and composers to gain unfair market dominance without making any significant contribution themselves. The only ones who would benefit from further tightening copyright laws (e.g., making computer-generated works subject to copyright protection in the future) are precisely these corporations, not the little people who are crying out loudly today.