- Precipitated a new class of computationally intense and expensive systems at a time when we desperately need to be focused on sustainability and reducing power demands/increasing efficiency.
- Devalued human labor without being high enough quality to truly replace it.
- Grossly violated an unspoken social contract of the internet by abusing the commons, leading to many people locking down their content.
- Flooded the internet with unverifiable noise that looks credible, making it harder to find high quality information and enabling scams and laziness.
At best this productivity tool is of neutral value to society. If you think it's a net good, I question your judgment.
- No, we just need better ways to generate electricity, which Sam Altman is also working on.
- If something is not replacing labor, it will not devalue it. In this case, GPT4 is replacing human labor, which is indeed devaluing those specific labors. But it is also unlocking new potential, which in the history of all technology has always been a net positive in the end.
- I wasn't aware of this unspoken social contract before OpenAI existed, but maybe I'm just ignorant.
- This is true, but this is also a trend that has been headed downward for a long time thanks to Google/SEO. The signal-to-noise ratio has indeed gone down due to GPT-powered blog spam, but honestly we needed to get our act together before GenAI anyway. This is actually lighting a fire under people's butts to find ways to avoid the AdSense/affiliate marketing fueled drivel.
Oh good, I'm glad Sam Altman, who doesn't even have a bachelor's degree, is on the case. I'm sure his efforts towards cold fusion will be appreciated.
> I wasn't aware of this unspoken social contract before OpenAI existed, but maybe I'm just ignorant.
It's shocking to me the number of programmers out there who simply did not realize everyone would be mad at them for leveraging everyone's work into a massive for profit system. Then they play stupid when people rightly called them out and spout some bullshit about outmoded forms of production as if productivity was an issue for the generation of culture.
Clearly he is not the one doing the physics himself; that is an uncharitable interpretation of the point (but I am sure you're aware of that). He is funding fusion research. It is reasonable to assume he is doing that in order for large-scale AI can be a thing without people worrying about the environmental impact.
ChatGPT is offered by the for profit arm of the company. The relative success of that product with respect to it being profitable is irrelevant to it being for profit.
On the contrary, it is incredibly relevant whether or not the "for profit" system actually makes a profit. If ChatGPT does not make a profit, it is less "leveraging everyone's work into a massive for profit system" and more "leveraging everyone's work into a public good that is provided at or below cost, like a library".
It's easy to forget tangible win-win examples like this[1] or this[2]. Speaking from my personal experience, it's improved my life by reducing tedium associated with writing code. Small wins, but there's lots of them spread over many people. They are not abstract and it's harder to write grand narratives about them.
> Precipitated a new class of computationally intense and expensive systems at a time when we desperately need to be focused on sustainability and reducing power demands/increasing efficiency.
Microsoft are building over 10GW of firmed renewables which will partly power their AI datacenters. It is not all greenwashing and cynicism. As far as emissions go, GPT should not be put in the same basket as truly wasteful sectors like beef or crypto mining. Everything takes energy, including productivity tools like GPT. The focus should be on sustainable growth and scaling firmed renewables, which is the only politically realistic way out of the climate crisis. Degrowth can't work, either on a political level, or on a company level given the competitive capitalist system that they exist in. I find this[3] is a good discussion on that topic.
> Flooded the internet with unverifiable noise that looks credible
I agree with you on this. It's not all rosy, but let's not let social media off the hook. LLMs have not made long-form journalism worse, for example. The problem is the interaction of LLMs with incentives created by SEO algorithms and social media.
I don't buy the idea that there's nothing we can do about this with respect to whether we do it at all. I'm happy for Microsoft that they're building out green power infrastructure, but it would be better if that was put towards displacing fossil fuels rather than enabling extremely inefficient bullshit generators.
- Precipitated a new class of computationally intense and expensive systems at a time when we desperately need to be focused on sustainability and reducing power demands/increasing efficiency.
- Devalued human labor without being high enough quality to truly replace it.
- Grossly violated an unspoken social contract of the internet by abusing the commons, leading to many people locking down their content.
- Flooded the internet with unverifiable noise that looks credible, making it harder to find high quality information and enabling scams and laziness.
At best this productivity tool is of neutral value to society. If you think it's a net good, I question your judgment.