I deleted it in an impulse due to oversensitivity to the criticism that I was using ai; in large part because I did think the comment was somewhat verbally low quality, I kinda talk rambling like an ai on high temperature. I’d called that out as such in the reply. Richard came by and was like “I have no idea what you’re saying, can we ban ai generated text here please?” and I was like “okay yep I am not in the mood to defend myself about how crazy I often sound, delete”—most things I’ll just let myself be confident in my own knowledge and let others downvote if they disagree, but certain kinds of accusations I’d rather just not deal with (unless they become common and thus I begin to think they’re just concern trolling to make me go away, at which point I’d start ignoring the accusation; but while it’s semi rare, I assume it’s got some basis).
the comments were:
first comment: yeah, but the ais and their users do owe some amount to the workers whose work the ai transformed and recombined (adding now: similarly to how we owe the ancestors who figured out which genomes to pass on by surviving or not)
second comment: we should try to find incrementalized self-cooperating policies that can unilaterally figure out how much to pay artists before it’s legally mandated in ways that promote artist contribution enough that the commons converges to a good trade dynamic that doesn’t cause monopolization. eg, by doing license tracing through a neural net, and proposing a function of license trace that has some sort of game theoretic tracing in order to get this incrementalization I describe.
I deleted it in an impulse due to oversensitivity to the criticism that I was using ai; in large part because I did think the comment was somewhat verbally low quality, I kinda talk rambling like an ai on high temperature. I’d called that out as such in the reply. Richard came by and was like “I have no idea what you’re saying, can we ban ai generated text here please?” and I was like “okay yep I am not in the mood to defend myself about how crazy I often sound, delete”—most things I’ll just let myself be confident in my own knowledge and let others downvote if they disagree, but certain kinds of accusations I’d rather just not deal with (unless they become common and thus I begin to think they’re just concern trolling to make me go away, at which point I’d start ignoring the accusation; but while it’s semi rare, I assume it’s got some basis).
the comments were:
first comment: yeah, but the ais and their users do owe some amount to the workers whose work the ai transformed and recombined (adding now: similarly to how we owe the ancestors who figured out which genomes to pass on by surviving or not)
second comment: we should try to find incrementalized self-cooperating policies that can unilaterally figure out how much to pay artists before it’s legally mandated in ways that promote artist contribution enough that the commons converges to a good trade dynamic that doesn’t cause monopolization. eg, by doing license tracing through a neural net, and proposing a function of license trace that has some sort of game theoretic tracing in order to get this incrementalization I describe.
Yeah, the specific calling that out was part of the reason it seemed fine to me.