There's an "About" link on the top of the page and if you click it it fully explains what they do and for who in the first sentence of the first paragraph.
You're getting a negative response because ignoring that and implying that they're secretly doing sketchy things makes it look like you're doing bad faith criticism
- At least to me, AI writing (especially from Claude) is actively painful to read. It's worse than the average person who has flawed English (or just sucks at writing) because of how verbose and stylistically repetitive it is.
- AI writing is a strong probabilistic signal that what I'm reading is going to be crap in terms of the actual ideas and content too, even if it isn't the case 100% of the time. I just don't want to waste my time on that kind of thing.
When I use it for writing I usually have an idea or thesis to explore already. I typically write it out stream of consciousness. The core idea is mine.
I'm not using LLMs to think for me, instead just edit the writing so it has proper grammar and the run ons are reduced.
Even better for something that has data. You can pull PDFs with encoded tables and extract the data into consistent units to compare. You can have it write code to do it and cross check the outputs. You can do that in a minute. Would take hours without an LLM.
The post specifically proposes royalties for ideas from books, not royalties for the books themselves. You would absolutely still be able to share ideas you learned from the books you pirated in that situation. It'd be insanely draconian if you couldn't.
(Then again, US copyright law often is insanely draconian.)
Lots of artists! They are not even remotely hard to find. They are literally a google search away. Typing stuff into Suno because you can't be bothered to search "new artists that sound 90s" is crazy
In general, "loss of contact with reality" is well understood to be an individual experience. If you think voices are talking to you, that's schizophrenia. If you think God wrote an entire book of life advice, that's Christianity. So, kinda by definition, a large group of people cannot generally experience "loss of contact with reality", they're merely mistaken.
The alternative is to accept that 90% of humans are suffering some form or another of psychosis, because there's very little that even a majority (51%) of people agree on, and that means about half the population is wrong about any given topic. Multiply by the number of topics out there...
You've assumed an uncharitable boundary and then said "see, that's obviously wrong". Well of course it is if the boundary you selected places 90% of humanity on the side of "loss of contact with reality".
So just, you know, don't do that. Select a boundary that places 90% of humanity on the side of "wrong about a number of things but within the bounds of normalcy for the species at large", sprinkle in some caveats about "in the industrialized world" and "for someone with at least a highschool education" and such, and you've got what I was actually describing.
My point is that AI psychosis is well within the bounds you're mentioning: yeah, those people are wrong about a number of things, but it's well within the bounds of normalcy for the species at large; especially in the industrialized world; especially for anyone that has at least a high school education.
You can't cherry-pick a definition where "AI psychosis" is meaningfully different from "wrong about a few things" without hitting a huge swath of "within the bounds of normalcy for the species at large" - there's just too many people in the category
There is a huge difference between being incorrigibly wrong (delusion) and psychosis (much more encompassing). There is not a difference by degrees because being incorrigibly out of touch on a range of issues does not mean you are psychotic.
reply