I don't accept the premise that there is a harmful class bias in opposing gen AI. This argument presumes both that the writing of working class and marginalized people is less valuable unless it matches the style of wealthy people, and that they cannot...
-
@jenniferplusplus this specific endeavor is certainly bad.
I'm prone to ignoring goals / desires and focusing on outcomes. Delusions and misaprehensions are not justifications, generally. But, the mental gymnastics one would need to justify this pursuit along whatever grand arch of history we happen to lie on... Simply ridiculous.
I was not trying to shift the focus away from the specific issue. Ones context tends to follow oneself, and I guess I've been on a somewhat fatalistic bent, of late.
-
@cykonot no, you're good. I'm not upset. I just think it's important to recognize that capital is acting with purpose. Capitalists know what they're doing. They know the cost. They know the harm and the risk. They're doing it anyway, on purpose.
Our response has to recognize that. If we assume they're ignorant, we'll get lost trying to educate them away from this path that they knowingly chose, and it will never work.
-
@jenniferplusplus nobody worth taking seriously believes that marginalized people need AI to write. 'For ten and sixpence one can buy paper enough to write all the plays of Shakespeare...The cheapness of writing paper is, of course, the reason why women have succeeded as writers before they have succeeded in the other professions.'
non-academics throughout history have remade literature to their liking & changed the art for the better. to discount their capabilities is condescending & insulting
-
@jenniferplusplus the barrier to access is *publishing,* not the writing process. academic privilege and cronies with connections are not fixed by AI. the bland cowardice of corporate publishers is not fixed by AI. this is yet another example of corporations abusing the language of social justice to benefit themselves. god knows why anyone still falls for it.