> One day after this piece went up, Chaotic Good made significant changes to their website — including pulling the “Narrative Campaign” section completely.
I checked the Internet Archive but I cannot access any of the archived versions. Apparently the website uses JS to display its content and the IA can't deal with it. Internet searches show that the page existed, though, so I'll take the content deletion as proof.
> Isn't this what the free software movement wanted? Code available to all?
But this is not that. The current situations is closer to "what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine".
I have been releasing my writings under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license which requires attribution and that anything built upon the material to be distributed "under the same license as the original". And yet I have no access to OpenAI's built-upon material (I know for a fact they scrape my posts) while they get my data for free. This is so far legal, but it's probably not ethical and definitely not what the free software movement wanted.
No one speaks for everyone, but when TiVo used the GNU license in a similar one-sided way the free software movement reacted by creating a new GNU preventing exactly that. And, again, the Creative Commons license I'm using was designed (perhaps ineffectively) to prevent precisely this situation. So I feel confident saying that the past actions of the main referents of the free software movement support my view.
Sorry I was being polite. I'm part of the free software world, and you don't speak for me. And I like the new freedoms that I have to make more free software and free existing proprietary software by remaking them as free.
I'm saying more and more "if you don't have the time to write it then I don't have the time to read it". Therefore my first impression is: if the process is so formulaic that you can automate it, then the content itself cannot be of any interest and the whole song and dance should probably be scraped altogether - think of a person asking ChatGPT "make this one-liner sound professional" and then sending it to someone who auto-summarizes it.
You mention that the target audience is "stakeholders who want to validate your existence", which makes me think that your target audience doesn't really care about what you actually did but rather about being heard. If that's the case then replacing the Delivery Manager (who is arguably doing a good job) with a machine that screams "I want to think about you as little as possible" is definitely a risk. It may work well to provide the DM with a first draft, though.
Disclaimer: I don't know your team nor stakeholders and I'm probably not in your industry.
Some documents are not important today, but they become _critical_ in the future. We lost a guy from my team and he was the only one who happen to know how to do this one process that happens every couple of months. Having that document was crucial. There is a lot of writing that is like that. I make my LLM write PR descriptions. It's not for me now and it might be for some of the reviewer now. But it's 100% for me in 2 years when I'm trying to understand why I did any of this and what was even the intention. But I'm a dev who tends to work on long lived systems where every once in a while you desperately need to know why something was done this way 5 years ago.
If you remember the old OkCupid blog they used to post interesting articles about online dating. I know their article about whether you should smile on your profile picture was eventually debunked [1], but it was nonetheless nice to have objective, data-based, non-pua advice on how to be successful in online dating.
There was an actual effort at data science going on here before the marketing team took it over in the latter years. See the published book Dataclysm by one of the founders for more of the good stuff.
I'm surprised it took this long but two weeks ago I saw my first live streamer at a flea market. He was wearing some type of camera on his head (can't tell which one) and had his phone mounted like a wristwatch to read chat notifications. It was like that old Penny Arcade's strip about Glassholes come to life [1].
He was definitely filming everyone without our consent.
Everyone who studies linguistics will tell you the rules of language are descriptive not proscriptive.
This means that people saying "plagiarism" of an LLM, means that LLMs are necessarily in the set of things that can do plagiarism, regardless of if those same people would ever say this about a spanner.
And you can also think about it a different way: a book is a tool for storing and distributing information, photocopying it is still plagiarism when done without attribution. Likewise, taking the output of an LLM, which is a tool for generating text in response to a prompt, without attribution, is as much plagiarism as if it came from a book.
IMO, what matters most is that a lot of people want to be aware of if/when some content came from an LLM vs. from a human. That makes attribution useful, which makes it important to get right. And that's still the case even if you still object to the specific word "plagiarism".
I don't think your example works because in the book case there's a clear author whose ideas are being reproduced without permission. The LLM in your example is not the author but rather the printing press, and no one would argue that the printing press' ideas are being stolen because the press doesn't have any.
If one want to argue that "not citing the LLM would be plagiarism" then we would have to find the human at the end of the chain whose ideas are being reproduced, which would require LLMs to output "this idea was seen in the following training documents".
No, we really can't send something like that now. Or at least not if we want it to be useful on arrival.
I'll make an educated guess that, as of this moment, there are zero functioning swarms of humanoid robots recharging on such a reactor on Earth.
Once we add radiation shielding, software and hardware reliability, landing (marsing?) it all safely and deploying it (among others) I wouldn't be surprised if the earliest arrival time is, unsurprisingly, 20 years in the future.
I think you are missing the parent comment's point.
The point is not "this guy is a genius" but rather "this war was so predictable, even this weird guy could pinpoint with frightening accuracy how this war would happen two years before it started".
While I understand the importance of "trusting your gut", I feel uneasy about telling people to just go with it because that's how you entrench confirmation biases: you don't know what's driving your judgement, you don't need evidence (in fact, you can now disregard it), and you have no way to assess the accuracy of that feeling except in those rare cases when you find out you were right.
Sometimes your brain picks up that a person is dangerous in ways your rational mind cannot explain and you'd be thankful that you follow that feeling. But also sometimes your brain dislikes minorities in ways you're not comfortable accepting and now you're actively being part of the problem.
I checked the Internet Archive but I cannot access any of the archived versions. Apparently the website uses JS to display its content and the IA can't deal with it. Internet searches show that the page existed, though, so I'll take the content deletion as proof.
reply