cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/949452

OpenAI's ChatGPT and Sam Altman are in massive trouble. OpenAI is getting sued in the US for illegally using content from the internet to train their LLM or large language models

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] RatzChatsubo@vlemmy.net 16 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I'm no expert on law but maybe something about AI unethically taking our jobs away

[–] NightFantom@slrpnk.net 23 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Universal base income + AI/robots taking care of all necessary jobs sounds great

[–] RatzChatsubo@vlemmy.net 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Thats exactly what Andrew Yangs political platform was. I hope he runs again

[–] Shartacus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

I wrote him in and probably will again

[–] Slacking@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago (1 children)

China didn't take your job and neither will AI. Corporations will replace you for something that cost less.

We can't really legislate against AI because other countries won't. Its also a huge boon for society, we just have to make sure the profits are redistributed and work hours overall are reduced instead of all the productivity gain going into the pockets of the mega wealthy

[–] assembly@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I’m not sure that people want to legislate against AI as much as they want to find a way to legislate for the fair outcomes associated with AI productivity. The challenge is that is harder to do. In the USA we can’t get out of our own way to properly tax corporations, nevermind have a more complex solution like reduce worker hours, increase PTO based upon improved societal output. In the absence of a complex but comprehensive solution (which I don’t think we have the capability to pull off) people are desperate and saying things like “let’s hold back on AI will we can put together this mythical great plan”. We’re never going to get the great plan though. Hopefully I’m just cynical but I don’t see a path (at least for the US as I can’t speak for the rest of the world) that doesn’t continue towards dystopia.

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What makes it unethical? How is it different from advancements in technology taking away any other job, like elevator operators, numerous factory positions, calculators (the human kind), telephone operators, people who sew clothes (somewhat), and so on?

It seems to me that automating away jobs has historically bettered humanity. Why would we want a job to be done by a person when we can have a machine do it (assuming a machine does equal or better)? We can better focus people on other jobs and eventually, hopefully, with no mandatory need for a job at all.

[–] sergio@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

hopefully, with no mandatory need for a job at all.

Lol, as if. Look at wages:productivity since the 70s

[–] CoderKat@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

Well, this "eventually" thing wouldn't be until we can automate away so many jobs that we simply couldn't (meaningfully) employ a significant chunk of people. We're not there yet. Though we shouldn't wait till we reach that point to get some form of UBI available. It's at that point where UBI would be critical and needs to be at a living wage level.