I bought a datacenter GPU that doesn't fit in a normal motherboard, macgyvered the fan with jumper wires, and now I'm running a model that ties with Claude Sonnet 4.6 on benchmarks, all for £200.
Thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful, sincere response. I can tell you’ve given this some thought, and appreciate the fact you aren’t just regurgitating talking points.
You make valid points regarding copyright law concerns, but my own perspective is that it’s an even playing field now. No one individual, group, company, etc was targeted, or unduly affected relative to any other. It could be argued it was ethically wrong to have been done at all, but since it was, and it was done to EVERYONE, then in my view it is a shared creation. Everyone is equally entitled to the resulting, from the social media users whose conversations trained the models, up through the senior engineers or CEOs of non-profit organizations whose code trained the models on syntax.
None of it can be extracted reliably, none of it can be distilled - it is an amalgamation of information. Belonging you everyone. Saying you object to having unwillingly participated is understandable but meaningless since it cannot be undone, cannot be excised, and even if it could, the sheer amount on data means the elimination of any one source would hang an insignificant impact as to be noticable. So it’s moot. You may as well say you object to the Moon being named Luna in the past. Go for it, but it doesn’t change anything. Even if you convinced everyone it should have been called ‘Billy’ instead, you won’t change the reality of the past. Know what I mean?
I don’t mean to be disheartening by highlighting the futility of objection, but it’s undeniable. There’s zero benefit possible, zero gain, and zero impact. Why wallow in complaints of the indelible? Instead, accept and adapt, as humans excel at.
I’d personally like to see global tax laws that establish taxing of usage by businesses with that revenue used to fund Universal Basic Income for every person, so that the productivity and advances of this shared creation are fairly shared with everyone. I think that should be the goal of all objectors, because that is feasible, realistic and fair. Anything else is literally unrealistic. Like demanding of reality that gravity should give you special treatment. Such demands, while grand, are nonsensical.
Claiming that global tax laws are realistic while banning AI isn’t is just cope. Banning AI needs nothing more than for people to realize the harm and to stop doing it. It’s exactly how we stopped using CFCs. It’s how several billion people stopped eating shark fin soup. It’s how we have begun moving away from disco fossil fuels to renewables.
Thank you for taking the time to write a thoughtful, sincere response. I can tell you’ve given this some thought, and appreciate the fact you aren’t just regurgitating talking points.
You make valid points regarding copyright law concerns, but my own perspective is that it’s an even playing field now. No one individual, group, company, etc was targeted, or unduly affected relative to any other. It could be argued it was ethically wrong to have been done at all, but since it was, and it was done to EVERYONE, then in my view it is a shared creation. Everyone is equally entitled to the resulting, from the social media users whose conversations trained the models, up through the senior engineers or CEOs of non-profit organizations whose code trained the models on syntax.
None of it can be extracted reliably, none of it can be distilled - it is an amalgamation of information. Belonging you everyone. Saying you object to having unwillingly participated is understandable but meaningless since it cannot be undone, cannot be excised, and even if it could, the sheer amount on data means the elimination of any one source would hang an insignificant impact as to be noticable. So it’s moot. You may as well say you object to the Moon being named Luna in the past. Go for it, but it doesn’t change anything. Even if you convinced everyone it should have been called ‘Billy’ instead, you won’t change the reality of the past. Know what I mean?
I don’t mean to be disheartening by highlighting the futility of objection, but it’s undeniable. There’s zero benefit possible, zero gain, and zero impact. Why wallow in complaints of the indelible? Instead, accept and adapt, as humans excel at.
I’d personally like to see global tax laws that establish taxing of usage by businesses with that revenue used to fund Universal Basic Income for every person, so that the productivity and advances of this shared creation are fairly shared with everyone. I think that should be the goal of all objectors, because that is feasible, realistic and fair. Anything else is literally unrealistic. Like demanding of reality that gravity should give you special treatment. Such demands, while grand, are nonsensical.
Claiming that global tax laws are realistic while banning AI isn’t is just cope. Banning AI needs nothing more than for people to realize the harm and to stop doing it. It’s exactly how we stopped using CFCs. It’s how several billion people stopped eating shark fin soup. It’s how we have begun moving away from disco fossil fuels to renewables.