Post

The dialogue around LLMs is kind of broken both in terms of critique and advocacy. For critique, we need to focus on how we attack fascist tech power consistently — LLMs are only one part of that; merely saying "AI bad" has simply ended up with a lot of people using AI quietly while feeling shame...

And amongst AI advocates, there's too often the same tedious fallback to arguments of inevitability and "progress", which excuse the enabling of the bad actors in tech, and advance their authoritarian project. It's a failure of imagination, in addition to being complicit in their political goals...

You won't be able to have conversations about the utility of this technology with artists, whose whole livelihoods were robbed, until there is a restitution. Bad actors and the monopolization of commercial creative industries have pushed this to a breaking point.

I've been working on the push to compensate creators for years, including building platforms for how developers can directly pay content owners. That's another reason why I think people need to actually engage in a conversation that doesn't push everything underground.

The thing is creators don’t want compensation. They want their work removed from training data. Here is a very eye opening survey done in the UK www.aopawards.com/aop-co-autho...

You can see that most creators don’t even trust that their work would be adequately compensated nor that they’d have enough control over how their work is used. My organization along with other photo groups are coming together to replicate this survey and advocate for creators here in the U.S.