this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2026
21 points (75.6% liked)
Asklemmy
55603 readers
749 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Technology cannot be unethical, right?
It's use/application, safety regulation aspects, ownership etc. would be the focus, right?
The corporations who supports copyrights are stealing data(from others and other corporations) for training AI.
By calling the technology unethical, we are letting them off the hook by making it vague and on the technology, rather that their decision to not provide credit or remuneration for the original data creators, right?
Oh so now it's a soulless regurgitation machine with no agency. Okay. No point in the conversation then.
It is, right?
The AGI and their stuff about sentience seems mostly marketing by the corporates. Have there been any serious changes on it, right?
Tho, our concept of sentience will probably be tested while they actually test if it can be developed.