@kara_d@anildash@threads.net or, it's not a meltdown and you're taking literally one small part out of context from a larger conversation so that you can exaggerate it and ignore the broader point I was making, because that lets you ignore the salient part.
@manualdousuario I liked your post, to be clear! I am glad you took it in the spirit I intended. I think there's definitely room for thoughtful disagreement here — this is a tough set of questions for us all to think through.
@Brilliantcrank@octothorpe It wasn't really from the same era (though Prince was flying through eras at that point). It was recorded a year after ATWIAD came out, and released a year after that. But most of the Around album had been recorded before or during the Purple Rain tour, so there was a gap of a couple years in between the two eras.
How many different people's work do you think you've seen since you've been on social media? Like how many different individuals have created the photos, videos, and words that you've looked at since you started scrolling timelines on your phone?
@ewhac are you unaware that ChatGPT is in the top 10 websites in the United States, from *direct input* — meaning people typing in the website address themselves so that they can use it? That Sora has been at the top of the App Store chart for _weeks_? How did I lose you by talking about a factual thing? Is everyone on Mastodon in a complete bubble where they don't have access to reality, isolated from the actual internet?
@zkat@neia Yeah, they absolutely do. Take just Sora alone, for example — it topped the iOS App Store for *weeks*, on its own, with probably millions of downloads each day. Just judging from traffic displacement for sites like Wikipedia, we can also estimate how many people are substituting consumign content within LLMs for visiting sites on their own. The *most* conservative estimate of elective use is over 200M users across all the platforms. Norms are very different in Asia, for example.
@zkat@McNeely@neia If I'm an idiot and somebody has a great plan to convince 100 million parents to suddenly care about stopping their kids from using ChatGPT, when those same parents haven't stopped their kids from using... literally any other app, then I'd loved to be proven wrong. But the _most common_ response I hear is magical thinking like "there oughtta be a law!" from people who seem to somehow think the *trillions* being spent to stop such laws aren't going to matter.
@zkat@neia I'm *not* separating it — people who are saying "they shouldn't do that" and then walking away from the conversation are the ones who are separating themselves from the ethical conversation! Refusing to talk about _how we actually remedy these harms_ is refusing to engage in the real-world ethical implications. These tools are killing children, fairly regularly, and when I say, "maybe we should offer alternatives to wean kids off of them", I'm regularly scolded for it. It sucks.
@zkat@McNeely@neia I can see how you get to that POV honestly. Where I'm starting from is simple: *half the kids in this country* have already used ChatGPT to help with doing their schoolwork. And approximately zero of their parents understand Big AI to be a potentially mortal threat to those kids. So I don't care about ideal solutions in the abstract, I care about harm reduction, and I think a lot of folks are pearl-clutching about needle exchanges. Which is fine, but we still gotta move.
@codinghorror I mean, I have sympathy for "Don't do this, and let's figure out what to do instead!" Because sometimes it's hard to solve problems and we have to band together to find alternatives. But "don't do this bad thing, dumbass, be smart like me" sure is guaranteed to fail.
@earthshaking so your feeling is you are smart and right and insightful and they're all fools who just are too dumb to know what you know about everything? But if they would just hear your wisdom, then they would stop using it? Is your plan to tell them they're dumb and then wait for them to have an epiphany?