deleted by creator
Facebook Exec Scoffs, Says AI Could Never Be Profitable
You can stop reading there.
funny thing? if they’d limit it to “black or chinese” posts and plastered it with ads, they’d probably make bank
what is a “black or chinese” post?
I had a millisecond thought that like okay so they’re going to stop doing it then?
fuck do you mean “legendary”
he’s just another shithead capitalist
Legendary cunt maybe.
He came third in the UK election in 2010. The first thing he did was join hands with the Conservatives, put them in power and start a spiral of decline.
Fuck him and everything he ever stood for.
I thought Facebook executives could be ‘infamous’ at best.
Of all the comments, why is it just you and one other questioning this ‘legendary’ status?
There is absolutely nothing you can do at any social media company to receive that title.
I’m going to do something we should all do, block this “news outlet” from everything you possibly can. Godamn.
Yeah I mean that’s the point
I have an awesome business model for a company that gives guided tours of celebrity houses, but I’ll never make any money if they just keep locking their doors on me! That’s unfair and discriminatory, and I will not be profitable unless I can enter those houses whenever I wish!
Don’t forget to show Taylor Swift’s bathroom as she’s pooping! You gotta have that on the tour!
What do you MEAN she called the cops?? This is a violation of my entitlement!!! I’m rich and therefore don’t have to play by others rules, or make any sense! The world revolves around ME!!! Never forget that! Money is the most important aspect of life, and I won’t take sass from a wage slave!
Have you noticed that all social media companies are involved in AI?
The second use case (that looks even uglier) is to use it to simulate users on their platform and influence them via chat.
Not only to buy certain products but also to change political views. Imagine how much money one can make by doing that. No more bot farms needed.
What the fuck is going on with that picture?
Those eyes will haunt my dreams.
it’s enhanced to make him look more cute and human. isn’t that what big eyes do?
My business of stealing items from the local Walmart and then selling them to people for a lower price outside of Walmart will never be profitable if I have to pay for those items or ask Walmart to give them to me first.
(What’s hilarious is that even the above business plan holds more water than the average AI service which cannot achieve a profit even if the thefts are legalized because of the still high operating costs.)
It’s not stealing. They are just copying. They haven’t deprived you of anything.
As if that makes it any better.
I mean it’s the excuse that laughably is used anytime folks justify pirating. I find it funny most ignore or can’t see the parallel.
What? Who uses that argument?
the irony here is that genAI is more expensive in all domains: environmental, financial and ethical
Nick Clegg is not “legendary” in the slightest.
There are legendary villains too. But truthfully, he doesn’t even fit that bill either despite having worked for Facebook. Maybe he’s just the legendary wart on the arse of history.
Are you sure his name isn’t Nick Scoffs? That’s my takeaway from the title.
It is kind of a legend that he managed to turn a whole generation against the Liberal Democrats for being a spineless Tory sucker.
Fair point.
Sounds to me like he’s saying the market doesn’t want AI, which is fine by me.
I don’t like Facebook, I don’t like this “legend,” I don’t like so-called AI being forcefed down our throats. I’ve yet to see a reliably good use case that makes me forget how many polar bears get cooked while we are playing around with this quarter-baked tech. And I don’t think it’s right to just syphon off the training data either.
That being said, I want to defend old Nick a tiny bit. Why doesn’t he think it’s feasible to go to every copyright holder and ask for permission? Because the stuff is readily available online. Either because people put it there voluntarily. Or because people torrented it, file-shared it, stole it. I’m not excusing one crime with another committed by somebody else. This is just about the motivation: why don’t they go around to every artist and ask? Because they don’t have to. And they have deep enough pockets to pay later if they have to. If you were sitting in Facebook’s c suite (you know what the c stands for), and you were entangled in a race to the bottom with the Googles and OpenAIs of this world, this makes business sense unfortunately. And if you have ever enjoyed pirated content online, you are (as I am) culpable in a homeopathic dose. If we didn’t occasionally break the law, Meta would have to go ask more artists because there would be no other way. That’s the status quo we find ourselves in. The moral gray zone.
I suggested in another thread a new law, based off of Murphy’s. Anything that can be training data, will become training data. Whether it’s a big company or a rich privateer with large server capacity - somebody is going to take it. It’s not right and just and legal and at the same time an inevitability. That’s why all these measures to get these companies to ask artists is akin to trying to close the barn door after the horse has bolted. We need to milk these companies for money, percentages of revenue and raised funds, and find a way to distribute this among the artists. Fines, taxes, voluntary contributions - all the tools need to be thrown at companies that train or apply the various models. The longer we spend pearl clutching at the audacity of these big corporations, the more money they get to keep.
Technically, smoking weed in the Netherlands is illegal. The law just isn’t enforced. Stealing bicycles is illegal everywhere but they get stolen all the time. Abortion may be illegal but tolerated until a certain time where you live. We have many scenarios where we’re stuck in the moral gray zone. Where illegal things just happen and life goes on. I am afraid that so-called AI has provided us with another one.
I don’t like it, I don’t like it at all. I just don’t see any other way to move forward. Weavers hated the industrialization, horse breeders the introduction of the automobile, the music industry Napster et al., and everyone will hate so-called AI.
I scoff at the execs that don’t get shot. Life will never be liveable unless they agree to let someone end their lives.
I’m in lets continue as things are and randomly kill one CEO a year. I guarantee those psychopaths would not even consider getting a different job. Full on hunger games style.
Quite a lot of voices say ‘you can only train on my content, [if you] first ask.’ And I have to say that strikes me as somewhat implausible because these systems train on vast amounts of data. I just don’t know how you go around, asking everyone first,
Never does the question of NOT training these “systems” at all enter the conversation.
Fuck “profitable”. It’s a tired concept that has led us down this dystopic path due to intrinsic human greed. Let’s start using “beneficial” as a guide instead.
That’s a slippery slope though. Next you’ll start hearing about “empathy”. Where does it stop??
“Thief says robbing houses wouldn’t be profitable if you had to ask the owners for consent first”
Better headline:
"Former Facebook exec admits AI will never be profitable’
Say’s that they definitely WILL continue to steal people’s possessions.
Because PROFITS before ETHICS.
fwiw, this only applies to LLMs.
Which is what everyone means now when they say AI.
