If you can come up with a scenario where AI hasn’t doubled in scale by 2030 by belching smoke into the atmosphere

Nukes. Possibly fusion. Possibly fusion accelerated into reality by use of LLMs to solve some of the remaining challenges.

ourworldindata.org/how-much-energy-do-data-center…

cryptoslate.com/stop-shaming-bitcoin-when-daily-s…

If the people who made it don’t want it to be used for AI training (…speculation based on a 1/1 billionth sample…), it shouldn’t be.

But the people who made it do want it to be in public libraries, accessible, seen, heard and otherwise distributed - would the majority of them rather that AI be trained on exactly what they wrote, or just hear-say?

…So you insist that AI power use isn’t a big problem right now, but your best case scenario for the future is that humanity gets nuked out of existence. By nukes that were designed using help from LLMs, which they haven’t been shown to be able to help with.

You seem like a very serious person who is worth debating.

As for the data use thing, firstly, I don’t know why the choices are between the actual work and hearsay. I don’t know where you got those two options from. I also don’t know what would be producing the hearsay (human? LLM? If the latter, are we straight up admitting to copyright laundering? Also, I thought training LLMs on output of previous LLMs caused model collapse). I especially don’t know why you’re asking me to speculate on what creatives want immediately after attacking my ability to speak on behalf of creatives. But since you are apparently asking me to do that, I think they’d prefer the hearsay, since the point is that they don’t want the model to be able to imitate their work for anyone who asks for cheap, and in so doing, put them out of a job. Or worse, have the model agree to a job they would have said no to, and damage their credibility and brand.