In Deep Geek did a video about this. And there are some good reasons. Essentially the eagles wouldn't want to because it's not really their mission. Or to put it another way it's not really what they are designed for. They are supposed to send messages and not carry the enormous burden that is the One Ring. It's like trying to send a heavy rock somewhere with a paper airplane.

The quote from the book referenced in the video is:

"How far can you bear me?" I said to Gwaihir. "Many leagues," said he, "But not to the ends of the Earth. I was sent to bear tidings not burdens."

Also, a commenter made a good point that the eagles themselves would be susceptible to the Ring's influence as well.

The Eagles were also described as the proudest of beasts. They would have been the most vulnerable to the Ring’s influence themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alOGSooSqmM

So what?

So appealing to ethics was bullshit got it. You just wanted the automated theft tool.

Deepseek

It kept some things hidden but it was the most open source LLM we got.

Ok, new AI model drops, it’s opensource, I download it and run on my rack. Where profits?

The next new AI model that can do the next new thing. The entire economy is based on speculative investments. If you can't improve on the AI model on your machine you're not getting any investor money. edit: typos

Bots could be used to spam LLM comments, but users can effectively act as a manual bot with a LLM assisting them.

There really is no LLM detector yet.

Unless the prompter goes out of their way to obfuscate the text manually, which sort of defeats the purpose, they tend to be very samey. The generated text would stand out if multiple users were using the same or even similar prompts. And OPs stands out even without the admission.

edit: to clarify I mean stand out to the human eye, human mods would have to be the ones removing the comments

The issue is the scale. One comment can be fact checked in under an hour. Thousands not so much.

Also, it's not purely about accuracy. I want to be having discussions with other humans. Not software.

Thanks for bringing this up to the group, I appreciate it! edit: typo

Forced opensourcing would totally destroy the profits, cause you spend money on research and then you opensource, so anyone can just grab your model and don’t pay you a cent.

DeepSeek was released

The profits were not destroyed.

Where would the profits come from?

At this point the speculation is primarily on what comes next.

People are betting on what they think LLMs will be able to do in the future, not what they do now.

I mean yes, and?

It's theft. They stole the work of writers and all sorts of content creators. That's the wrong that needs to be righted. Not how to reproduce the crime. The only way to right intellectual property theft is to pay the owner of that intellectual property the money they would have gotten if they had willingly leased it out as part of a deal. Corporations, like Nintendo, Disney, and Hasbro, hound people who do anything unapproved with their intellectual property. The idea that we're yes anding the intellectual property of all humanity is laughable in a discussion supposedly about ethics.

We should push to make high-vram devices accessible.

That's a whole other topic. But what we should fight for now is worker owned corporations. While that is an excellent goal, it isn't helping to undue the theft that was done on its own. It's only allowing more people to profit off that theft. We should also compensate the people who were stolen from if we care about ethics. Also, compensating writers and artists seems like a good reason to take all the money away from the billionaires.

Lots of talks with openai devs where they just doomsay about the dangers of AGI, and how it must be top secret controlled by govs.

OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, Chris Lehane, wrote on LinkedIn

Looks like the devs aren't in control of the C-Suite. Whoops, all avoidable capitalist driven apocalypses.

I've got three arguments for you on why you should make a rule against LLM comments, even those publicly marked as AI. And I'm going to refer to AI as LLM because large language models are what we are dealing with here.

First, LLMs aren't a reliable source of information, especially for recent events. They regurgitate training data based on weights calibrated during training. These weights are used to create results that, especially for numbers, can look accurate for the topic but still be the wrong number. For recent events, they will lack the relevant data because it won't have been in the data set they were trained on. So until that data is added in, the LLMs are giving an answer to something they don't know, for lack of a better phrasing. These are commonly known limitations of the LLMs we are discussing.

If people start using LLMs to argue then the comments sections are going to be filled with pages of made up LLM garbage. LLMs will generate more misinformation than anyone can keep up with to debunk. Especially when misinformation could do the most damage like in the weeks leading up to the special election this November 4th in California.

I find it unlikely that all of the statistics listed, without sources, by the LLM are accurate. But regardless of that, if a user was to respond by taking that comment and putting it in a LLM it's not likely that the LLM would be able to keep those numbers consistent. These errors would compound the longer the discussion went on between two LLMs.

At best this all wastes peoples' time and lemmy becomes an extension of the misinformation LLM machine. At worst this becomes an attack vector for bad actors. Bad actors fill up comment sections with LLM discussions that promote one view point and bury the rest. Knowing the comments are LLM generated doesn't solve these problems on its own.

Second, we shouldn't want to automate thinking. Tools are supposed to save time while retaining agency. My laptop saves me the time of having to send you a letter in the mail and having to wait for the response. My laptop doesn't deny me agency when it does this. I get to decide what I value and how that is communicated to you. The LLM saved OP's time, if all OP wanted was text that looks correct at a glance, but it removed OP's agency to think.

Facts and data, purportedly accurate, are assembled into a structure to deliver a central point, but none of that is done with the agency of OP. It's not the OP's thoughts or values being delivered to any of us. It's not even a position held for the sake of a debate. This is the LLM regurgitating the position it received in the prompt in the affirmative, because that's what the LLMs we have access to do. Like shouting into a cave and getting the echo back out.

We aren't getting what we want faster with LLM content, we are being denied it. The LLM takes away our ability to have a discussion with each other. Anyone using an LLM to think for them is by definition not participating in the discussion. No one can have a conversation, argument, or debate with this OP because despite OP having commented OP didn't write it. For lack of a better analogy, I might as well have a discussion with a parrot.

What are we doing on this website if we are all going to roll out our LLMs and have them talk to each other for us? We can all open two windows, position them side by side, and copy and paste prompts back and forth without needing a decentralized social media website as the middle man. The goal of social media and lemmy is to talk to other people.

Third, do you really want to volunteer to moderate LLM content? ChatGPT prose gets repetitive and it can never come up with anything new. I would not want to be stuck reading that all day.

Tails are better. 🧜‍♀️🧞‍♀️ But I do find the public hatred for feet to be strange. Maybe too many stubbed toes? 🤷‍♀️

that feet by themselves are just not sexual to most people.

That makes sense.

To use clothing as a comparison it’d be like someone getting excited by someone in best up work clothes vs someone getting excited by lingerie.

I'm in this example.

Regulate? This is what lead AI companies are pushing for, they would pass the bureaucracy but not the competitors.

I was referring to this in my comment:

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/big-beautiful-bill-ai-moratorium-ted-cruz-pass-vote-rcna215111

Congress decided to not go through with the AI-law moratorium. Instead they opted to do nothing, which is what AI companies would prefer states would do. Not to mention the pro-AI argument appeals to the judgement of Putin, notorious for being surrounded by yes-men and his own state propaganda. And the genocide of Ukrainians in pursuit of the conquest of Europe.

“There’s growing recognition that the current patchwork approach to regulating AI isn’t working and will continue to worsen if we stay on this path,” OpenAI’s chief global affairs officer, Chris Lehane, wrote on LinkedIn. “While not someone I’d typically quote, Vladimir Putin has said that whoever prevails will determine the direction of the world going forward.”

The shit just needs to be forced to opensource. If you steal the content from entire world to build a thinking machine - give back to the world.

The problem is unlike Robin Hood, AI stole from the people and gave to the rich. The intellectual property of artists and writers were stolen and the only way to give it back is to compensate them, which is currently unlikely to happen. Letting everyone see how the theft machine works under the hood doesn't provide compensation for the usage of that intellectual property.

This would also crash the bubble and would slow down any of the most unethical for-profits.

Not really. It would let more people get it on it. And most tech companies are already in on it. This wouldn't impose any costs on AI development. At this point the speculation is primarily on what comes next. If open source would burst the bubble it would have happened when DeepSeek was released. We're still talking about the bubble bursting in the future so that clearly didn't happen.

Are people still hung up on foot fetishes? That's like the tip of the ice berg. I assumed making fun of foot fetishes would be the first step, but we seem to be running in place here. The cultural Zeitgeist never seemed to move on.

I guess we will have a collective Fetish cinematic universe style discovery at some point where people realize you can have a fetish about anything. I never expected to super heroes to popular ever. Now I'm convinced everything will be popular eventually.

We shouldn't accuse people of moral failings. That's inaccurate and obfuscates the actual systemic issues and incentives at play.

But people using this for unlicensed therapy are in danger. More often than not LLMs will parrot whatever you give in the prompt.

People have died from AI usage including unlicensed therapy. This would be like the factory farmed meat eating you.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/woman-dies-suicide-using-ai-172040677.html

No, it's not just you or unsat-and-strange. You're pro-human.

Trying something new when it first comes out or when you first get access to it is novelty. What we've moved to now is mass adoption. And that's a problem.

These LLMs are automation of mass theft with a good enough regurgitation of the stolen data. This is unethical for the vast majority of business applications. And good enough is insufficient in most cases, like software.

I had a lot of fun playing around with AI when it first came out. And people figured out how to do prompts I cant seem to replicate. I don't begrudge people from trying a new thing.

But if we aren't going to regulate AI or teach people how to avoid AI induced psychosis then even in applications were it could be useful it's a danger to anyone who uses it. Not to mention how wasteful its water and energy usage is.