General Discussion

highplainsdem

(62,288 posts)

40. The AI companies who felt they had a right to take everyone else's IP have been quick to scream if

Reply to David__77 (Reply #32)

Sun Mar 29, 2026, 01:07 PM

Mar 29

they feel their own has been taken.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

5 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

BattleRow Prairie_Seagull rictofen GrapesOfWrath Wednesdays

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So, I'm gonna stir the pot a bit... don't be too harsh... [View all] Joinfortmill Mar 29 OP

Its a loaded gun, given to a child. Swede Mar 29 #1

AI is simply a change accelerant to make the wealthy wealthier more quickly Tim S Mar 29 #2

Best explanation of it I've heard so far Walleye Mar 29 #3

Except this time genxlib Mar 29 #10

Elon Musk promises an age of abundance thought crime Mar 29 #23

Elitist billionaires... Safe as Milk Mar 29 #53

I believe he said that is one possible path genxlib Mar 29 #57

Even Elmo doesn't know what he has in mind. paleotn Mar 29 #70

Oh dear lord. Not this shit again. paleotn Mar 29 #64

I hope you are right genxlib Mar 29 #73

We already have near humanoid robots... paleotn Mar 29 #75

Thanks for the interesting links - bookmarking. jmbar2 Mar 29 #88

Well, that describes the market. thought crime Mar 29 #37

Yup. orangecrush Mar 29 #46

Ha! I think I could do better stirring, but I'll pass. BootinUp Mar 29 #4

I'd take one of these leftstreet Mar 29 #5

Of course, that video was made with AI thought crime Mar 29 #26

How about AI is like fire, and has to be controlled FullySupportDems Mar 29 #6

Exactly. anciano Mar 29 #7

I agree. But it has to have some (considerable regulatory) constraints hlthe2b Mar 29 #8

A LOT of constraints! n/t Safe as Milk Mar 29 #56

Seems like a... 2naSalit Mar 29 #9

It's much better and safer than Google gulliver Mar 29 #11

I have yet to find a single AI summary which is accurate. Ms. Toad Mar 29 #15

It's better for the AI to tell you about your symptoms than Google gulliver Mar 29 #16

It is absolutely NOT better for AI to tell you about your symptoms than Google Ms. Toad Mar 29 #76

The trouble with Wiki isn't that it spouts false information on a regular basis. Igel Mar 29 #18

Agreed - but it took me until the last paragraph to get the AI connection. Ms. Toad Mar 29 #79

I've found many accurate responses from AI summary thought crime Mar 29 #28

Those AI overviews are stealing traffic from the websites they stole the information from, and the highplainsdem Mar 29 #35

And you've fact checked every bit of its response? Ms. Toad Mar 29 #78

A Substantial Majority Of The Time... ProfessorGAC Mar 29 #89

A coworker used AI to get a second opinion from his doctor's. Shermann Mar 29 #41

I have a long history of correcting doctors with independent research. Ms. Toad Mar 29 #81

Anthropic Claude is very accurate. milestogo Mar 29 #42

It still hallucinates. All genAI models do. It can hallucinate at any time, and for that reason its highplainsdem Mar 29 #47

Define accurate. paleotn Mar 29 #65

I haven't specifically checked it myself - Ms. Toad Mar 29 #77

And current LLMs do exactly the same thing as Google search or YouTube algorithms. You just don't realize it. paleotn Mar 29 #66

While I agree, in principle as to the possibilities for it's use, Ms. Toad Mar 29 #12

"AI relies on the stolen works of humans (art and writing)..." mike_c Mar 29 #86

Without planning and guardrails... Happy Hoosier Mar 29 #13

AI doesn't concern me as much... biocube Mar 29 #14

You aren't wrong ... BUT KentuckyWoman Mar 29 #17

Of course it is, Disaffected Mar 29 #19

If you mean generative AI, the kind most hyped now, it's badly flawed tech based on stolen intellectual property, highplainsdem Mar 29 #20

Very true statement mgardener Mar 29 #21

Absolutely. It's a key tool of production. David__77 Mar 29 #22

It works - to the extent it works when it's mindless and will always hallucinate - only because of IP theft. highplainsdem Mar 29 #29

I guess that depends on one's view of "intellectual property". David__77 Mar 29 #32

The AI companies who felt they had a right to take everyone else's IP have been quick to scream if highplainsdem Mar 29 #40

That's absolutely true and on a certain level funny to see. David__77 Mar 29 #82

I'm in favor of creatives owning their intellectual property, and that right being protected. It's as highplainsdem Mar 29 #84

That can certainly be adjudicated as with any other property issue. David__77 Mar 29 #85

Legal judgments aren't always ethical, as everyone here is aware. Creatives and those who support highplainsdem Mar 29 #87

A.I. got us Donald Trump in 2024. Nuff said. Botany Mar 29 #24

Wish AI meant actual (human) intelligence. BattleRow Mar 29 #49

AI is the devil. We think we can control it, but we can't. Scrivener7 Mar 29 #25

Devil with the Blue Dress? She's the Devil in disguise? thought crime Mar 29 #31

The problem is not a fork or a knife, the problem is who has it in their hand...An assassin with a knife is very Escurumbele Mar 29 #27

"Guns aren't the problem..." ? thought crime Mar 29 #33

An accurate analogy, however dlk Mar 29 #30

I agree. I've been saying this about computers for decades. However, I think most of us agree that IA should be Martin68 Mar 29 #34

I think it sound like a scream.AAAAA.IIIIII... MiHale Mar 29 #36

The problem is not how we use it, Mblaze Mar 29 #38

The most critical word is "you" -- meaning WHO? Martin Eden Mar 29 #39

If it were only looked as a fork Javaman Mar 29 #43

We are about to FAFO on AI. LudwigPastorius Mar 29 #44

True, AI by itself is benign. The companies controlling it, however, are not. tinrobot Mar 29 #45

hmmm...almost 50 replies and no interaction... ret5hd Mar 29 #48

I sometimes stir a pot in the kitchen and then walk away until dinner is served Soul_of_Wit Mar 29 #60

Don't see how that's "stirring the pot" ABC123Easy Mar 29 #50

I do agree with you there. One of my smartest friends, a tech professional, thinks like Joinformill. Scrivener7 Mar 29 #55

It's a tool for the billionaire overlords, not for us FakeNoose Mar 29 #51

Where was our blue ribbon commission prior to its release. Prairie_Seagull Mar 29 #52

AI can be rejected - and should be, by ethical, smart people who have any choice in the matter. highplainsdem Mar 29 #59

Granted that using genAI is optional and can be rejected..... anciano Mar 29 #62

It's genAI being hyped and used most widely. Which is why people need to know about how harmful highplainsdem Mar 29 #63

The sole cat I ever had agreed with you. Prairie_Seagull Mar 29 #83

Not like a fork: like a cruise missle with a spork instead of a warhead. JustABozoOnThisBus Mar 29 #54

Two huge negatives, both related to human nature Soul_of_Wit Mar 29 #58

In addition, we need... cornball 24 Mar 29 #61

And using AI harms human intelligence. See this thread on yet another article about that: highplainsdem Mar 29 #67

That's very simple Renew Deal Mar 29 #68

Sadly, few people are fully able to tell when AI provides facts or fallacies. MineralMan Mar 29 #69

This is absolutely true! Oneironaut Mar 29 #71

AI differs from a fork in that a fork does not PufPuf23 Mar 29 #72

americans can't be trusted with sharp objects bigtree Mar 29 #74

AI cannot replace humans Progressive dog Mar 29 #80