The Onion has an AI policy.
-
@jalefkowit i wish that policies like this included "code", to be more holistic and give a nod to that genai is not okay for anything
i hate hearing the sentiment that it's fine for codeProgramming is out of scope for a "newspaper". A policy stating objects/activities the company doesn't engage in is just soapboxing. That's what articles are for, not policy pages.
-
The Onion has an AI policy. It is refreshingly clear
Except as the object of gags or posts …
-
@Crow @jalefkowit I don't see why you say bare minimum. Today this is a principled position that is against the grain regardless of what you, I, or Mastodon think. We should applaud and push them to maintain that position, but it's not the bare minimum IMO.
@fiigvam @Crow @jalefkowit It is the bare minimum because anything less than this is unacceptable. But we are cheering and applauding: that's what "hell yeah" is. (Because, as you say, this is a too-rare decision these days.)
-
The Onion has an AI policy. It is refreshingly clear
@jalefkowit So, what I'm hearing is, The Onion is a source of high-quality, up-to-date training data, which will make my AI smarterer without risk of model collapse by teaching it many facts.
-
The Onion has an AI policy. It is refreshingly clear
@jalefkowit I only doslike that they limit it to "creative".
That garbage needs to be banned IN ALL roles.
-
The Onion has an AI policy. It is refreshingly clear
-
The Onion has an AI policy. It is refreshingly clear
@jalefkowit I don't really like this because 'an existential threat to the livelihood of creative professionals' can be read to mean that bullshit generators could actually substitute for the writers of The Onion. I'd much rather that they either omitted this part or explained it in a way that doesn't make that implication.
-
The Onion has an AI policy. It is refreshingly clear
@jalefkowit unless it is also satire…
-
B bogwitch@social.data.coop shared this topic
-
Programming is out of scope for a "newspaper". A policy stating objects/activities the company doesn't engage in is just soapboxing. That's what articles are for, not policy pages.
@lxskllr @jalefkowit i disagree, it still makes a statement that genai is not ok for code
-
@jalefkowit Wow, so well said. I wish more organizations adopted this mindset
@Em0nM4stodon Yeah I'd much rather be reluctantly acknowledged by companies with principles like this, than all the alternatives we currently face.
-
The Onion has an AI policy. It is refreshingly clear
Well actually if a human can be replaced by AI, this probably means the human hasn't got a valuable skill.
I can say no AI can replace me to write the code I write, the blog posts I write, and the books I'm going to write.
This also true about many artists.
However, not many understand value of a good writing/art/code/video. Fewer who can tell if it's a good and creative one by looking at it.
So this is the real problem not just AI. But also the people who don't understand.
-
The Onion has an AI policy. It is refreshingly clear
@jalefkowit If only I could get the community theater to adopt a policy like this
-
The Onion has an AI policy. It is refreshingly clear
@jalefkowit
The Onion announces policy of not using Ai-generated content.
Bong hits 4 The Onion. -
@jalefkowit I don't really like this because 'an existential threat to the livelihood of creative professionals' can be read to mean that bullshit generators could actually substitute for the writers of The Onion. I'd much rather that they either omitted this part or explained it in a way that doesn't make that implication.
@david_chisnall @jalefkowit Which prompts the question in my mind: has an AI ever written something funny?
-
@jalefkowit If only I could get the community theater to adopt a policy like this
I bet showing them the onions policy makes it more likely they'll adopt something similar. A lot of people prefer making decisions by copying someone they respect's answers.
-
@jalefkowit I don't really like this because 'an existential threat to the livelihood of creative professionals' can be read to mean that bullshit generators could actually substitute for the writers of The Onion. I'd much rather that they either omitted this part or explained it in a way that doesn't make that implication.
@david_chisnall @jalefkowit as we've seen in the current state of the world, LLMs do not need to be *good* in order to harm entire industries. There's a lot of slop out there taking up space that human creativity used to fill.
-
I bet showing them the onions policy makes it more likely they'll adopt something similar. A lot of people prefer making decisions by copying someone they respect's answers.
@alienghic @jalefkowit I bet not. But I am going to keep being really annoying about this. I will send them everything I stumble upon like this, and I will bring it up at every board meeting until we do something
-
The Onion has an AI policy. It is refreshingly clear
I am a subscriber. They are Good People.
-
Well actually if a human can be replaced by AI, this probably means the human hasn't got a valuable skill.
I can say no AI can replace me to write the code I write, the blog posts I write, and the books I'm going to write.
This also true about many artists.
However, not many understand value of a good writing/art/code/video. Fewer who can tell if it's a good and creative one by looking at it.
So this is the real problem not just AI. But also the people who don't understand.
"if a human can be replaced by AI" is load-bearing here, and is mostly a marketing position from AI companies.
Additionally, every human creative endeavor is worthwhile, no matter the output's quality, which is arguably subjective. Generative AI just doesn't have a good place in human society.
-
The Onion has an AI policy. It is refreshingly clear
@jalefkowit Excellent news!!
