If you want to read chatbot output, why are you coming here? There's a ton of free chatbots for you to read.

After all, the audience here knows where to go to get chatbot output, but they're coming here instead. What does that tell you?

Well, we're going to find out sooner rather than later. Right now you don't know how thin (or negative) the margins are, either, after all.

All we know for certain is how much VC cash they got. Revenue, spend, profit, etc calculated according to GAAP are still a secret.

And people keep claiming the token providers are running inference at a profit.

It's not an ideological hangup, it's confusion over the assumption by certain groups that "silence is consent", when it is not.

Where are you going with this line of thought? That making a copy of someone's work, using it for profit and not crediting them doesn't "take" anything from them?

I thought it was clear from "refuses to include any sort of consent" that I am talking specifically about holding an opinion that refuses to include consideration for consent, not refuses consent for usage.

This way, I can get my kid to make his own monsters; while he can't run blender to produce his own monsters, using these paper templates is sufficient for him.

Who said anything about refusing consent?

Look, I'm not saying that you are doing that, I'm pointing out that "Silence is consent" is not as strong an argument that many think it is.

I am not representing your words as mine. I am not using your words to profit off. I am not making a gain by attributing your words to you.

> There has to be lines for cases where requiring attribution is required, and cases where it is not.

You are blurring the lines between "using a quote or likeness" and "giving credit to". I am skeptical that you don't know the difference between the two.

Regardless, any "perspective" that disregards the need to acquire consent is invalid. Even if you are going to ignore it, you have to acknowledge that you don't feel you need any consent from the people you are taking from.

This whole "silence is consent" attitude is baffling.

I think you are walking all around the word "consent" and trying very hard to avoid it altogether.

Your perspective, because it refuses to include any sort of consent, is invalid. No perspective that refuses consent can be valid.

Perhaps the makers of the movie neglected to read the story before creating a script?

If you're measuring the intelligence of criminals who have been caught, why would you expect it to be otherwise?

IOW, you're recording the intelligence of a specific subset of criminals - those dumb enough to be caught!

If you expand your samples to all criminals you'd probably get a different number.

MC/Visa duopoly is an example of lock-in via network effects. Not sure that that applies to a product that isn't affected by how many other people are running it.

I think I just broke my cynicism meter :-(

Interesting take on ethics.

Do you also think spam is okay too? After all, that is mass automated annoyance of a human.

What about ignoring a communities policies? I mean, you knew before you unleashed your bot that doing so was against their policy, right?

Do you also feel that your company's policies should be worked around too? I mean, as a company, you have policies too, right? Do you also consider it ethical that automated breaking of your company's policies ethical?

Is it okay if I do it to you? You have an online footprint with a company (presumably) trying to get customers; it's not too hard right now for me to drown your signal in noise using bots. Is that ethical too?

Classy

> does that scene imply that we should do something to tilt the scales in the opposite direction?

No, it did not.

> I agree that it doesn't explicitly show someone tilting the scales, but that doesn't mean that eugenics are not an integral part of the premise in a "if we don't do something about this, this is what the world will look like" kind of way.

And, to you, "Do something about this" means only one thing - forcefully stopping classes of people from reproducing?

Is that really how we use the word "eugenics", though? That scene you refer to explicitly explained that Natural Selection does not necessarily select for intelligence.

So while some people are calling it "Eugenics", it's what we more typically call Natural Selection, Evolutionary Pressure, etc.

Eugenics implies that the selection criteria was not natural. The scene you mention makes it clear that, in-universe anyway, the selection criteria was entirely natural and not a pressure imposed by humans.

You are misremembering; they had a scene of an intelligence test that had adults matching shapes (stars -. tars, squares -> squares) and getting it wrong.

What do you propose as a replacement?