kaganerkan

Greetings, fellow internet dweller. Today, I'll discuss my stance on AI. I will explain when I use it and where I stand. This won't be some bland AI disclosure text; it will be more philosophical and reasoned.

Training on public work

First, I don't believe that AI using material humans produce for educational purposes is unethical in itself. AI generally doesn't reproduce its training data verbatim; it learns patterns, much like humans learn from the information they encounter. However, it can still memorize and reproduce. I see this training system the same way I see a person learning from publicly available information, where we can memorize or remember parts.

Who pays for the harm

But if AI companies take this stance, I believe we should charge AI for crimes we would have committed, and charge executives and others who authorized it too. I mean, if AI uses a book through piracy, it should pay the fines we would have. (The Guardian)

Similarly, if their AI impersonates an artist, they should be charged for that too. (Futurism) Or if their AI is involved in defamation, they should be charged too. (Wired)

As you have realized, I could keep going for days; these AI chatbots have done so many things that would land a human in legal trouble.

The only exception I can see is open-weight models that can run on consumer devices, because they could be seen as a public service. But this is an ethical claim, not a legal one. And this exception would be to provide an incentive for AI companies to develop AI in that way.

The originality argument

On the originality criticism, I disagree with many people: AI is original. You've seen the same model produce artwork across millions of accounts and industries without live training. It's as if you take an artist and revert their mind and skills to where they were.

I mean, the literal AI slop sites you have are nice-looking sites that turned ugly in your mind because, generally, all of them are designed by idiots who never fact-check a dumbed-down version of themselves. Thus, what you call AI slop is AI's original style.

The AI channel

That said, I respect work AI does the same way I respect work done by freelancers for others. For example, I have a human channel and an AI channel because I need to match other channels' posting speed on new developments, even though I am a high schooler with a heavy workload.

There is no feasible way to do it all by hand and match the speed of people who do this for a living, while also getting early access. So what I do is use AI to get it done.

I acknowledge that I didn't make that video, but I own it. Think of it like Netflix licensing or buying rights to a show when its own library can't reach the numbers it needs.

These days, I am a student preparing for both the American and Turkish education systems, and I also do these as hobbies and future investments. Every reader I acquire today means one more reader I can reach directly when I start a startup.

Where AI is a tool

Beyond that, I think AI can be useful and ethical in many cases. Specifically, I mean AI used as a tool. Even in my AI-managed channel, I tell the short-video script generators what I want them to claim, then verify it to protect factual authority.

When I write scripts (for long-form videos on both channels), I tend to make grammar mistakes, so I use AI to help me spot and correct them. These are very okay uses in my eyes.

What I'd change

If I could change anything in my pipeline, I'd have the AI channel dubbed by me. Since I'm already heavily involved in long-form videos' scriptwriting and AI only handles grammar correction and virality revisions, I would love to voice them myself.

I think that is the biggest upgrade I could give that channel, since AI voices aren't quite there, and I am not bad at voice acting. However, I do need time to read that in two languages without someone interrupting my audio.