- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/5400607
This is a classic case of tragedy of the commons, where a common resource is harmed by the profit interests of individuals. The traditional example of this is a public field that cattle can graze upon. Without any limits, individual cattle owners have an incentive to overgraze the land, destroying its value to everybody.
We have commons on the internet, too. Despite all of its toxic corners, it is still full of vibrant portions that serve the public good — places like Wikipedia and Reddit forums, where volunteers often share knowledge in good faith and work hard to keep bad actors at bay.
But these commons are now being overgrazed by rapacious tech companies that seek to feed all of the human wisdom, expertise, humor, anecdotes and advice they find in these places into their for-profit A.I. systems.
You must log in or register to comment.
serve the public good — places like Wikipedia and Reddit forums
Sorry, lost me at Reddit.
Reddit is a flaming monetized dumpster now but it used to be what the article is describing. (mostly)
Reddit has been welcoming for some years tbh
Now I don’t want to hear about it!
deleted by creator
The problem is neoliberalism that seeks to turn everything into profit and sees money as the only valuable target in the world.
Yes. The “tragedy of the commons” is a myth.
Without any limits, individual cattle owners have an incentive to overgraze the land, destroying its value to everybody.
This is factually false, because the land will be destroyed and individuals don’t benefit, not even in the short term. Commons work great (see open source software), but capitalism and power structures abuse and destroy them for short-term profit.
The fact that the land is destroyed is literally the point.
It doesn’t matter what time scale the land is destroyed in. At every individual point, you having your cattle eat more is better for you than you having your cattle eat less, because you individually starving your cattle completely still won’t stop the destruction.
The fact that you somehow don’t understand the very simple metaphor is not a failing of the metaphor.
If this is how everyone would act in their daily life, you would see crime, theft and abuse on an unimaginable level. No, people don’t always do what benefits them “at every individual point”. We are social creatures, acting as a community where the individuals benefit from working together. Although this has been successfully undermined by capitalism and other hierarchies.
This whole concept is also called, the Prisoner’s Dilemma, one of my favorite thought experiments because it shows how being rational can result in everyone being worse off.
It is never not advantageous, as an individual, to graze as much as possible. Your “analysis” ignores that very basic, unarguable fact.
Sure, it’s advantageous in the short-term. I think this is where we misunderstand each other. What I’m trying to say is that under normal circumstances, individuals aren’t maximizing their output. They are just living as part of the community, following the unwritten rules and benefiting from that. (In the prisoner’s dilemma, this would be choice A).
That’s the point. That’s the entire (and entirely correct) metaphor.
People ignore the communal benefit because in the short term it’s better to do so.
Although this has been successfully undermined by capitalism and other hierarchies.
Yeah, but when we’ve had no hierarchy we’ve always had constant warfare, which is also highly abusive (not to say that’s inevitable). We’re just as naturally capable of antisocial behavior as other species, when we can either socially get away with it (cow grazing, Easter Islanders killing all their trees) or do it to people we’ve decided are others (every time hunter-gatherer bands killed or enslaved each other).
You’re right we can act cooperatively in the right situation, but let’s not make it sound like human ignorance is new or unnatural.
Enshittification is the middle name of AI
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
Thanks to artificial intelligence, however, IBM was able to sell Mr. Marston’s decades-old sample to websites that are using it to build a synthetic voice that could say anything.
A.I.-generated books — including a mushroom foraging guide that could lead to mistakes in identifying highly poisonous fungi — are so prevalent on Amazon that the company is asking authors who self-publish on its Kindle platform to also declare if they are using A.I.
But these commons are now being overgrazed by rapacious tech companies that seek to feed all of the human wisdom, expertise, humor, anecdotes and advice they find in these places into their for-profit A.I.
Consider, for instance, that the volunteers who build and maintain Wikipedia trusted that their work would be used according to the terms of their site, which requires attribution.
A Washington Post investigation revealed that OpenAI’s ChatGPT relies on data scraped without consent from hundreds of thousands of websites.
Whether we are professional actors or we just post pictures on social media, everyone should have the right to meaningful consent on whether we want our online lives fed into the giant A.I.
Saved 83% of original text.
For the trust issues: Yeah, but on the other hand.
We’ll just have to go by figuring out who we can trust again. That’s a loss, but not as catastrophic as this article makes it sound.
As for the creativity issues, that’s not a new problem at all. Portrait painter used to be a lucrative profession before cameras, for example. If it’s only a few types of content (namely the kind that doesn’t rely on concept originality in this case) society adjusts with only short term pain. Bug me about when we have GAI in a few years that can do everything or how the shift this will encourage in our society could cause secondary problems instead.
I’m sure glad we’re talking about this stuff, though! If AI happened quietly with no debate I’d be much more afraid.
