alt Hacker NewsI don't think that definition meets what people would consider an invention.
The AK47 is an invention. The inventor "would prefer to have invented a machine that people could use and that would help farmers with their work - for example a lawnmower", but people still consider it an invention. Inventions do not have a polarity in the axis of quality of life.
There is no consensus on if GenAI is overall harmful or not. In general people are optimistic but concerned.
The last thing we need is another war on drugs.
I would rate A/B testing on human behaviour, or advertising to be more harmful to the overall human experience than GenAI.
Replies
“What about guns and bombs” is not a counter-argument that matters much, because you have to consider context. We can get into the weeds: guns and other weapons were used by various liberation movements to free the world from fascism and other forms of tyranny, and also to kill feral hogs attacking humans. The only real use for AI novel generation is if you’re stuck on a desert island with nothing else to read. But such a scenario is absurdly unrealistic and served better with a library full of real books. Anything an AI novel can do is done better by a human novel, without all the harms. Whereas a gun is the best way to kill a feral hog. A gun might be an anti-invention, but AI art generators are definitely anti-inventions.
> There is no consensus on if GenAI is overall harmful or not.
At least in part because it does not exist, oligarch marketing notwithstanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...
You likely are referring to plagiarism slurry.
Guns makes lives better if you are the disadvantaged and is at the receiving end of the abuse by the powerful. It makes the playing field even for you, which makes your life better..