have to wonder if its glib answer is partly or mostly hallucinated. You could provide links to where you found the information. You wouldn't have to factcheck the chatbot's answer, as even AI companies admit you should do.
Or maybe you just don't bother to factcheck and simply pass along what could be a wildly inaccurate answer, not caring whether it's inaccurate. Or you think it's other people's responsibility to check whether it's correct.
"Publicly available" is not the same thing as "public domain" - much as AI peddlers and fans would like to confuse the terms - and no copyright notice is required for copyright to exist.
AI bros themselves have admitted they steal intellectual property and hope to get away with it.
The ONLY reason we're seeing AI companies' mad rush to build as many data centers as possible is that generative AI requires so much compute and electricity and water.
I've owned PCs since the 1980s. I was online moderating a forum where we debated ethical uses of high tech 40 years ago.
I can't say any of us, looking to the future, imagined anything like the AI slop we have now from genAI. I don't think any of the techies I knew, both from the Bay Area and the tech hub around Boston, would have thought people would be so gullible as to rush to use hallucinating chatbots. Those techies included a lot of writers, and they would have taken a very dim view of the IP theft.
I'm not a Luddite. I subscribed to multiple online services, for business and personal reasons, even before there was a world wide web.
I appreciate good tech that works. I have zero respect for badly flawed, inherently unreliable, and inherently unethical tech built on theft and causing multiple serious harms.
And when you choose to use that tech, when you're not forced to do so by work or school, you're supporting that unethical industry and the harm it does.
And you're doing it for AI slop and tools that dumb you down and hurt others.
= new reply since forum marked as read