There might be a method behind the madness of the thin skinned autocrat heading Meta... Unfortunately it probably works.
A very balanced set of recommendations from the SFC around LLM uses. It's just the beginning and still lacks a bit in details. It's very welcome though and I look forward to their updates.
Long, rich, and sourced piece. Or why the current gold rush aims at accelerating wealth accumulation of a few to the expense of everyone else. If the plans work as intended, the outcome won't look good.
Very nice piece, timely and needed. Indeed, let's hope people stick to those principles.
When Amnesty International feels like it has to publish a 44 pages briefing pointing out what's wrong with your approach and business... it'd be nice to pay attention.
Very interesting take. This gives very valid ground on why tech communities should reject AI based contributions. Not doing so will indeed hinder the commons communities rely on to exist and improve. This is a path to prevent getting better at inclusivity and diversity (which is really needed).
This is very concerning. We don't need Wikipedia to fall prey to this kind of tactics... On the contrary!
Wondering how those very rich people think and perceive the world? Here is an explanation. I felt unease reading through this.
This is a fact I don't get... people are going their way to satisfy the need of a LLM but not the ones of fellow humans. I guess it's the conclusion which is somewhat right, it's about who has power. This is sad if true... also I doubt it's the single explanation.
Which means simpler models: and this is fine for most use! It's also easier to have more ethical options with the smaller and more specialised models. Let's not forget they exist even though the big industrial complex would like people to forget.
Stop looking at the shiny toy, remember the ethics behind them...
I personally think this is where it'll head after the bubble pops. We should be able to recover enough material to have something viable to run locally. The question will be "where the updated models come from?", it might be the public sector helping there and hopefully those will be truly FOSS and ethical (like Apertus).
The previous piece about the disagreement with Cory Doctorow was a good one even though I didn't put it in my review. This one is more important though! It's a necessary reminder that we can't put allies on a pedestal and then scream at them making mistakes or having different opinions. We can't afford this kind of purity culture... Especially right now.
Let's not forget the ethical implications of those tools indeed. Too often people put them aside simply on the "oooh shiny toys" or the "I don't want to be left behind" reactions. Both lead to a very unethical situation.
Interesting ideas on how to approach teaching at the university. It gives a few clue on how to deal with chatbots during exams, can be improved but definitely a good start.
I'm not sure the legal case is completely lost even though chances are slim. The arguments here are worth mulling over though. There's really an ethical factor to consider.
I agree with this so much. It's another one of those I feel I could have written. I have a hard time thinking I could use the current crop of "inference as a service" while they carry so many ethical issues.
There is a real question about the training data used for the coding assistant models. It's been a problem from the start raising ethical concerns, now it shows up with a different symptom.
Indeed I wish our profession would have a strong and binding set of ethics like doctors or lawyers. That wouldn't prevent all problems, but that'd tame some of the issues of our time.
Add to this how generative AI is used in the totally wrong context... and then I feel like I could have written this piece. I definitely agree with all that.