Also odd to advocate for control of tech only to cede the entire project to AI.

Great products have always needed an audience to succeed. It’s just that the early internet convinced a bunch of people that direct-to-consumer sales was possible without marketing and without creating an audience. The internet certainly makes selling easier and you can do so with a relatively small audience but some audience is always necessary. Building an audience is good because then you don’t have to work as hard for the second sale (or the third or fourth). Big companies have known and understood this forever. This is why they have insane marketing budgets.

> Katzenstein considers the reproduction of his signature by ChatGPT to be more than just a violation of intellectual property; to him, it’s closer to false impersonation. “[ChatGPT] is attaching my name to work that I do not endorse or like. It’s slop, and unlike the other slop that I’ve encountered, this is slop that’s pretending to be me.”

> “I’ve had people hack my credit card,” said Joe Dator, a New Yorker contributor for the past 20 years. “That feels like less of a violation than this. When they hacked my credit card, they didn’t dress up like me.”

So this has morphed from plagiarism and copyright infringement (bad) to impersonation (also bad, arguably worse, and maybe more provable in court). It’s chilling to think of the implications of having one’s signature attached to a document or to words that are not one’s own.

I have nothing to add. Just wanted to save this quote for posterity. Thank you.

I don’t disagree regarding the tastelessness of such “jokes”, but at the same time this is just a step or two away from Thought Crime territory, which is very disturbing.

> corporate executives love AI because it is extremely good at one thing - making you think it knows what it’s talking about, and masterfully avoiding any accountability.

Whether or not the LLM output is actually correct is often overshadowed by efforts to convince people that it is. This to me is the most concerning thing about AI (in its current state): the potential for mis/disinformation is huge and the companies controlling AI are more interested in it being widely used than in it being factually correct.

We live in a bizarre world where far too many people believe that harassment is permissible if someone is famous, in the public eye, or if they’ve done something wrong. Yes, his claims and credentials should have been investigated (and done so years ago) but, again, none of this justifies relentless harassment.

That others have been publicly shamed and harassed in the past does not justify this public shaming and harassment. That others did not take their life over it does not make this public shaming and harassment somehow okay.

It is very possible to believe that Arday misrepresented himself AND ALSO believe that the harassment against him was unwarranted. I personally would have much rather seen all that energy funneled into pressure on the institution — Cambridge and the other universities he worked at — to be transparent about their hiring practices and answer for clear inconsistencies in Arday’s work history.

I hope you and others realize that he was being relentlessly harassed. I highly doubt the academic job was the only thing causing him distress. His claims were questionable at best but not worthy of the vitriol he received.

Yes, but with a human worker there is a chain of accountability. With AI, there is none.