Bookmarking this for my own future reference.

I definitely don’t agree with everything in here, but it made me think in productive ways, and that’s important.

The purported inevitability is one of the most frustrating things for me about AI, and I think this shows that I’m very much not alone in that feeling. (Also, mandatory Ellul reference).

I apparently haven’t been watching enough video content from The Onion, because this was a treat.

Stories like this should take a prominent place in every discussion about generative AI.

Good for them.

Very glad for 404 Media’s podcast, because I somehow missed when they published this horrifying story.

I hate reading news like this because it just makes me depressed.

I will (almost) always post articles that make me angry about NCII.

It’s telling when you have to wait to grow a spine until you know your term is over, but better now than ever, I guess.

Helpful thinking and important suggestion.

Harsh but fair

Absolutely terrifying.

To echo a comment I made earlier today, I will always hold tech companies morally responsible for the harms they cause, but I get a lot less sure about legal responses. Do we trust this administration to handle NCII properly?

Sigh. The first paragraph here sums up my own feelings about the show, so I expect I’ll agree with the whole review about the movie:

When The Mandalorian first debuted on Disney Plus, it was a refreshing reminder of how fascinating Star Wars stories can be when they aren’t focused on the same handful of well-established characters. Especially in its first season, the series felt like a sign that Disney was shifting gears after disappointing fans with its last trilogy of big budget features. But as The Mandalorian went on, it became overstuffed with supporting characters and haphazardly-introduced lore that did little to make the show feel like must-see TV.

This post is hard for me. I am deeply resentful of commercial AI products, and I don’t like the idea of letting companies off the hook (at least in moral terms—I get a lot more hesitant when we start talking about specific legal responses). That said, I know the post is written in good faith, and I do think it makes some productive points. I dunno.

Doctorow has some helpful perspectives here.

Here’s a gift link. Jacques Ellul argued that you can’t separate the good aspects of technique from the bad. In that context, this paragraph stands out:

Optimists about generative AI have high hopes for its ability to produce future scientific breakthroughs — accelerating discovery, eliminating most types of cancer — but the technology is currently undermining one of the pillars of scientific research, inundating editors and reviewers with an endless stream of papers. Paradoxically, the better the technology gets at producing competent papers, the worse the crisis becomes.

Embarrassed to say that this gender dynamic of AI had never really occurred to me before. Interesting read.

Shouldn’t be reading this before bed because it isn’t calming me down.

Long before I ever knew what generative AI was, I was grumpy about the idea of Grammarly because I was suspicious of deferring to a computer on what “good writing” looks like. I appreciate Koebler’s thoughts here for the way it shows how generative AI—including Grammarly now, apparently—is doing something similar on an even larger scale.

It’s digital labor all the way down. What a depressing read.

Ben’s perspective here is useful.

Some important observations by Ian Linkletter in this interview.

Definitely worth bookmarking this for semesters to come. I like Canvas as far as LMSs go, but the sheer scale of dependence here has me thinking about taking other approaches. This first paragraph is a doozy:

Higher education has long been a target of ransomware gangs and data extortion attacks. But never before, perhaps, has a cyberattack against a single software platform so thoroughly disrupted the daily operations of thousands of schools across the United States.