Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

highplainsdem

(59,693 posts)
15. That article is nothing but pro-AI hype from someone incapable of being objective about AI. He's
Sat Dec 27, 2025, 04:05 PM
18 hrs ago

anti-regulation, so he probably backs Trump.

All those words about AI from him, and nothing about the AI companies having stolen the world's intellectual property.

He can babble about transparency by AI companies supposedly being better than regulation, but that"s bullshit and misdirection because the AI companies are opposed to transparency as well, and there's no way he isn't aware of that. They don't want to reveal their training data because they stole it.

He trivializes the harm done by chatbots, pretends to feel concern for the tragic deaths, but what he says next makes it clear chatbots getting people to commit suicide isn't anything he's really concerned about - at least not enough for him to think it's an adequate reason to regulate AI companies.

The paragraph below shows where his real focus is. Profits.

Ng said the first steps of creating AI models, referred to as the “training” or “pretraining” stages, “is where a lot of the questions are, where the very real questions are. When will the payoff for all of the capital expenses going into this training, when will they pay off?”


That training stage is where the theft of intellectual property starts. He says that's "where the very real questions are" - but it's obvious that to him the only real question is when companies can profit from that theft. Not if they should stop stealing and pay for what they already stole.

He's just another damn robber baron.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

If it don't make pizza, it ain't worth nothing. /nt bucolic_frolic 22 hrs ago #1
Might I add that you can only divide the pie of potential users so far. There is no way all of these data flashman13 22 hrs ago #2
In the end I think what you'll see is Amazo, Microsoft and Google be the dominant three. cstanleytech 22 hrs ago #4
In the end the big guys will gobble up everyone else for pennies on the dollar. flashman13 22 hrs ago #5
Well I got agree there as when it comes to writing they are extremely limited. cstanleytech 22 hrs ago #3
Yep. not fooled 20 hrs ago #7
Even it's factual questions can be flawed so you should always verify as some Trump lawyers are learning right now. cstanleytech 18 hrs ago #14
So don't use AI for writing. Anything you write with it isn't your work anyway and can't be copyrighted. highplainsdem 18 hrs ago #11
I don't, I have tested it out though and it's just not at the point where it'll replace a human being. cstanleytech 18 hrs ago #13
One serious limit: AI bots are completely incapable of actual logic William Seger 22 hrs ago #6
While he's correct, it doesn't matter. Shipwack 20 hrs ago #8
AI isn't really that much intelligence (for now at least), it is automation on steroids ToxMarz 19 hrs ago #9
I heard the same thing from an industry insider mdbl 19 hrs ago #10
The venture capital bubble may burst, but that's not going to stop the research. LudwigPastorius 18 hrs ago #12
That article is nothing but pro-AI hype from someone incapable of being objective about AI. He's highplainsdem 18 hrs ago #15
I totally agree. When the IT revolution rolled in during the late 60s, early 70s/80s, we were just seeing the beginning SWBTATTReg 15 hrs ago #16
We already have examples of computer aided 'reality' presentations. Aussie105 8 hrs ago #17
The only benefit I can see from any of this is to the employers FakeNoose 51 min ago #18
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»An AI pioneer says the te...»Reply #15