Fuck AI

Legendary? Give me a break, media.

It must be a pretty shitty little legend seeing as I didn't recognize his name. If he somehow manages to completely destroy Meta for the good of mankind, then we can call him legendary. Until this he is just an entitled piece of shit.

Do Facebook execs also come in VMax and Gigantomax forms? Like if this guy is a legendary Pokemon, what else does Meta have in its deck?

Also, more seriously, if tech companies can't be profitable without eminent domaining everything else, maybe they should be eminent domained themselves. Be utilities for the public good or shut the fuck up and play by the rules like all the other kids.

The entirety of the public domain is right there, Clegg.

I made a comment a few months ago saying exactly this, and that it’s clear they are fighting it so hard in court because they won’t be able to even use LLMs there will be so little training data otherwise. People said I was incorrect and that fb, etc would just pay for it. Turns out I was correct.

The absolute arrogance of these people.

They don't seem to understand that we DON'T NEED AI.

If it's only "profitable" by stealing then don't fucking do it.

I have an awesome business model for a company that gives guided tours of celebrity houses, but I'll never make any money if they just keep locking their doors on me! That's unfair and discriminatory, and I will not be profitable unless I can enter those houses whenever I wish!

fuck do you mean "legendary"

he's just another shithead capitalist

Better headline:

"Former Facebook exec admits AI will never be profitable'

"Thief says robbing houses wouldn't be profitable if you had to ask the owners for consent first"

Nick Clegg is not “legendary” in the slightest.

Facebook Exec Scoffs, Says AI Could Never Be Profitable

You can stop reading there.

My business of stealing items from the local Walmart and then selling them to people for a lower price outside of Walmart will never be profitable if I have to pay for those items or ask Walmart to give them to me first.

(What's hilarious is that even the above business plan holds more water than the average AI service which cannot achieve a profit even if the thefts are legalized because of the still high operating costs.)

Quite a lot of voices say 'you can only train on my content, [if you] first ask.' And I have to say that strikes me as somewhat implausible because these systems train on vast amounts of data. I just don’t know how you go around, asking everyone first,

Never does the question of NOT training these "systems" at all enter the conversation.

If you can't afford to pay for one of the raw materials required to make your product, then you don't deserve to have a business selling that product.

In any other scenario would this even be in question?

Fuck "profitable". It's a tired concept that has led us down this dystopic path due to intrinsic human greed. Let's start using "beneficial" as a guide instead.

Hopefully that script that blocks or overload Ai gets more popular

I scoff at the execs that don't get shot. Life will never be liveable unless they agree to let someone end their lives.

Ummm, yeah...that literally describes plagiarism. If you actually had to pay someone for their work, it wouldn't be as profitable...so you just steal it instead.

Facebook shareholder claims Facebook should be able to steal.

What the fuck is going on with that picture?

Yeah I mean that's the point

Sounds to me like he's saying the market doesn't want AI, which is fine by me.

They're already unprofitable

Because the point is to develop it enough that it can be used to enslave the human race

I don't like Facebook, I don't like this "legend," I don't like so-called AI being forcefed down our throats. I've yet to see a reliably good use case that makes me forget how many polar bears get cooked while we are playing around with this quarter-baked tech. And I don't think it's right to just syphon off the training data either.

That being said, I want to defend old Nick a tiny bit. Why doesn't he think it's feasible to go to every copyright holder and ask for permission? Because the stuff is readily available online. Either because people put it there voluntarily. Or because people torrented it, file-shared it, stole it. I'm not excusing one crime with another committed by somebody else. This is just about the motivation: why don't they go around to every artist and ask? Because they don't have to. And they have deep enough pockets to pay later if they have to. If you were sitting in Facebook's c suite (you know what the c stands for), and you were entangled in a race to the bottom with the Googles and OpenAIs of this world, this makes business sense unfortunately. And if you have ever enjoyed pirated content online, you are (as I am) culpable in a homeopathic dose. If we didn't occasionally break the law, Meta would have to go ask more artists because there would be no other way. That's the status quo we find ourselves in. The moral gray zone.

I suggested in another thread a new law, based off of Murphy's. Anything that can be training data, will become training data. Whether it's a big company or a rich privateer with large server capacity - somebody is going to take it. It's not right and just and legal and at the same time an inevitability. That's why all these measures to get these companies to ask artists is akin to trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted. We need to milk these companies for money, percentages of revenue and raised funds, and find a way to distribute this among the artists. Fines, taxes, voluntary contributions - all the tools need to be thrown at companies that train or apply the various models. The longer we spend pearl clutching at the audacity of these big corporations, the more money they get to keep.

Technically, smoking weed in the Netherlands is illegal. The law just isn't enforced. Stealing bicycles is illegal everywhere but they get stolen all the time. Abortion may be illegal but tolerated until a certain time where you live. We have many scenarios where we're stuck in the moral gray zone. Where illegal things just happen and life goes on. I am afraid that so-called AI has provided us with another one.

I don't like it, I don't like it at all. I just don't see any other way to move forward. Weavers hated the industrialization, horse breeders the introduction of the automobile, the music industry Napster et al., and everyone will hate so-called AI.

Its looking like AI will never be profitable period

Whys he got anime eyes?