No one says to legit business owners, "hey I see there's an underground market selling toxic knock-offs of your product: how will you incorporate the toxic product AND protect your customers against its harms?" But apparently it's fine to make this suggestion to educators with respect to AI.

The problems are all the basic functions of everyday life that, we will be told, can be done by Good Responsible Not-Gen AI. And that’s just (say it with me again!) a permission structure for eviscerating public services & core forms of human negotiation that are necessary to a functioning society.

fooled again!

hence chatbot bot outputs often sound as though a person is talking to someone who couldn't be bothered to pay attention (i.e. why they often sound like ads, which likely also make up a vast proportion of the training material)

So, no, what I wrote above isn’t actually about owning this schmuck on the grounds of “AI” actually having the power to eliminate jobs. As I’ve said time and again, “AI” is merely a permission structure for antilabor decisions that businesses wanted to make in the first place.

This demonstrates how artists actually work: through relational thinking, discerning, critiquing, connecting as thinking, feeling people. I know where every reference comes from. When artists take from each other with acknowledgement, responsibility, and respect, we make each other stronger.

"had no mental health problems" lmao
ChatGPT users either start with them or develop them through use. The phrase feels redundant

Generative AI, in both form and content, and whether looked on favourably or critically, seems to embody a collective hopelessness about the prospect of human learning and creativity, if not human knowledge altogether. It’s as if climate change had fans.

I mean this in the most appreciative way: it's like someone went to another planet and took pictures with a Gameboy camera. Love it.

for a longer explanation firstmonday.org/ojs/index.ph...