John Siracusa

Again, my analogy last time was like Photoshop.

It can massively increase your power as a graphics designer, but it's a lot to learn if you've never used a computer before back in the day.

And this seems to be like that.

Um, and then finally wrapping all this up, as I tried to emphasize last week and continues to be true.

All right.

Well, so does that mean we, once we just learn how to use AI at the things that it's good at in a good way, and we aren't all forced to use it and the hype, you know, the bubble bursts and the hype is gone and we figure out what is it actually good for and what is it not good for everything will be fine.

It'll be smooth sailing.

No, because there's still absolutely the unresolved issue of.

how is it that these tools came into being and how are the sources of the power that they have drive being compensated?

I think, and maybe this is an unrealistically optimistic view, I think it is plausible

To have an LLM that is as useful as the thing Steve Trout and Smith is using to, you know, be more productive and get more stuff done.

That is entirely trained in an ethical way.

In the same way that Adobe and Photoshop has that their models are trained entirely on licensed images.

Like, so they paid for the images, they trained the model and the images, they put that feature in Photoshop.

I think that is a, there's nothing wrong with that.

You know, a lot of people who wrote in with AI feedback were like, I'm against AI in all forms because it's just 100% evil.

I think even they would agree like, okay, but what about the Adobe thing?

That's fine, right?

They would say, no, you're draining the deserts of all their water or whatever by you.

It's like, you're not.