In a statement posted on the site’s homepage, @encounter notes that while they don’t believe AI is the main issue in itself, because when used properly and ethically it “can expedite the decompilation process in a significant way”, the “community aspect of decompilation has been broken” by people using AI in more questionable ways.
If the only justification for continued use of a tool is that it would be great in a hypothetical world where people don’t use it incorrectly, then there’s no justification for continued use of the tool.
I guess this is a philosophical issue, to me it works the other way round.
It’s not the tech that’s the issue, but it is broader democratic social organizational forms that need reform to make adoption of tech (LLM/genAI or other technology) or a wide range of other issues a lot more equitable.
LLM/ML tech is the future, it’s not like the crypto/NFT scams, not even close.
In any size group of people there will be some who do one thing, and some who do something else. If you’re waiting for everyone to use AI correctly in order for its use to be worth it, you’ll be waiting forever. The statement is correct when it says that AI technically isn’t the main issue in and of itself - the issue is actually with humans as a species, but humanity isn’t going to change - there will always be a significant amount of people who use any given tool incorrectly.
When the genie costs an immense amount of money to use, and produces things that aren’t worth the cost, it doesn’t need to be put back- it will be abandoned once we realize we can’t make money off of it.
That’s exactly the thing - the reason anyone besides the wealthy is able to use AI at all is because they’re letting us use it at a heavily discounted price in an attempt to figure out how to make it profitable. And they’re failing.
Butnit is. None of these companies are making any money. Are people going to pay whatnis required foe the frontier models to be profitable? And local is no where near on the same level.
They are not making any money because because the legal/economic/social system of the US doesn’t require profitability at this stage, that comes later once they achieve a monopoly-like position and they switch to more explicit rent-seeking behaviour and more direct corruption methods.
FWIW, we probably agree on much more than this short convo would imply. I am just looking at things from a different angle.
If the only justification for continued use of a tool is that it would be great in a hypothetical world where people don’t use it incorrectly, then there’s no justification for continued use of the tool.
I guess this is a philosophical issue, to me it works the other way round.
It’s not the tech that’s the issue, but it is broader democratic social organizational forms that need reform to make adoption of tech (LLM/genAI or other technology) or a wide range of other issues a lot more equitable.
LLM/ML tech is the future, it’s not like the crypto/NFT scams, not even close.
In any size group of people there will be some who do one thing, and some who do something else. If you’re waiting for everyone to use AI correctly in order for its use to be worth it, you’ll be waiting forever. The statement is correct when it says that AI technically isn’t the main issue in and of itself - the issue is actually with humans as a species, but humanity isn’t going to change - there will always be a significant amount of people who use any given tool incorrectly.
This may be true, but forms of social organisation can and do change and improve.
It’s not possible to put the genie back into the bottle, so to speak, when it comes to technology.
When the genie costs an immense amount of money to use, and produces things that aren’t worth the cost, it doesn’t need to be put back- it will be abandoned once we realize we can’t make money off of it.
And what if the full costs are partially (or even mostly) externalized onto someone else?
That’s exactly the thing - the reason anyone besides the wealthy is able to use AI at all is because they’re letting us use it at a heavily discounted price in an attempt to figure out how to make it profitable. And they’re failing.
Butnit is. None of these companies are making any money. Are people going to pay whatnis required foe the frontier models to be profitable? And local is no where near on the same level.
They are not making any money because because the legal/economic/social system of the US doesn’t require profitability at this stage, that comes later once they achieve a monopoly-like position and they switch to more explicit rent-seeking behaviour and more direct corruption methods.
FWIW, we probably agree on much more than this short convo would imply. I am just looking at things from a different angle.