A good question. Another question is - where does this leave open LLMs?

Parents claim:

> ChatGPT counseled Adam away from telling his parents about his suicidal ideation

OpenAI claims:

> ChatGPT warned Raine “more than 100 times” to seek help, but the teen “repeatedly expressed frustration with ChatGPT’s guardrails and its repeated efforts to direct him to reach out to loved ones, trusted persons, and crisis resources.”

What users type into the chat window has an influence. If you come talking about something illegal or damaging, it is not the fault of the model. You gaslighted the model into that response. Walmart does not create new devices/weapons based on customer chats, customers just pick and pay. It is not the same.

If you are right I think all open source developers should also be liable for damages resulting from their bugs. No? Use it at your own risk? Then AI should also have the same terms. They already write under each message: "ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info." "Claude can make mistakes. Please double-check responses." "Gemini can make mistakes, including about people, so double-check it."

I made AI spit out 50 or so articles over the last 6 months, they are all thoughtful and contain only ideas I chose to put in. They see no traffic and I don't care. I did it just for fun.

That's only half of it - people being willing-fully ignorant and avoiding thoughtful content. The other half is the platform squeeze - they all have Algorithms that maximize engagement by ranking a stream of slop. So human creators are "prompted" by an AI to write slop or never see a click.

Makes no sense, AI might make slop when you prompt is sloppily, but will certainly not be slop if you bring your own ideas to the chat room.

It is not proven correct since the latest models - Gemini 3 and Opus 4.5 are excellent. Think about it - yes, lots of content is generated, but there is also a human in the loop, it is not blind generation. That human will steer the model to something they think will maximize their click rate, so it's really human slop, or could be legit content as well, based on human guidance and just worded with AI.

Use Deep Research, it will comb over 500 sources, compare and report. Since it draws from so many sources it has a high chance of being correct according to them, which is the best we can get on the internet - a detailed knowledge about the distribution of positions, and an informed interpretation.

Good comment. Progress is based on team work, nobody is genius enough to do it alone. And I agree management is stupid. Just look how Meta is fumbling with LLMs, how the Chinese Qwen and DeepSeek do laps around them. It was a clear management issue and the poor guys became the scapegoat.

I doubt the ML engineers were not good enough since they were hired by Meta and worked there for years. More plausible is that they overspent on VIP hires and then decided to cut from other ML roles. I am curious to see in 6 months if Meta can catch up. Anyway, the majority ML work nowadays is not training models, it's prompt and agent stuff, this type of work is complementary to model training.

I think you confuse desire to lower costs with desire to increase profits. While the first might lead to increased profits on short term, companies don't care about costs as long as profits expand. If your company reduces costs 50% by using AI instead of human labor, my company uses both humans an AI and expands 10x more. In the end your company might lose.

Why make this about me? I asked a legit question. It is easy to find anything online, and see the original. Most of it is officially from the source, but there are a lot of "piracy" sites too. So if infringement was the goal, it would be easier to just get the original. It is fast, free and perfect fidelity. On the other hand generative AI will not replicate works closely, it costs money and is slow. Imagine generating bootleg Harry Potter, it would not work out, it would cost a lot, and take a long time. So generative AI is the worst tool you could have for infringement. We use it to create other things not substantially similar works, because perfect replication is already easier and cheaper.

A good take, I agree. Let's say we generate 100 pics privately, and as most gen AI images, only see them once and promptly move on. Is this private use infringing? Even if it doesn't look substantially like anything in the training set?

How come? If we wanted to infringe on works would just .. you know .. download them? Using AI means we Don't want those original works.