If you think calling AI users “creators” is bad, then let me remind you it was normalized the moment people called Steve Jobs the creator of Apple computers and the iPhone Edison the creator of anything at all. Edison was the first archetypical techbro, and Steve Jobs was the first modern techbro.
This has been going on for centuries. Scientists’ staff doing all the work of proving an idea. Same for physicians. Artists, also…a ton of people in their employ doing the actual art executing the artists’ ideas. The big name gets the glory while those under them hope to get noticed enough to go out on their own and repeat the process. These days it still happens, plus we have managers and CEO’s taking credit for the employees doing all the work of making something happen. Hell, I bet the guy that had the idea to build the Pyramids had hundreds of what constituted engineers and artisans of the day build the things and said “Look what I made!”
Very similar situation in science as well, most big name professors are actually managers of 20+ people groups and as far as I have seen, most ideas come from lower down the totem pole. Not saying that they don’t contribute, it takes a lot of time and effort to get from a new idea/discovery to fully developed concept but nontheless the payoff is much more in the professors favor.
Speaking of, if you ever get to the Valley of the Kings in Egypt, make sure to check out the tombs of the craftsmen who actually built the tombs for the kings. They’re just outside the Valley of the Kings, arguably just as beautiful, and mostly ignored by tourists.
In my opinion, there is an important difference, though: The software that people “create” with Claude, ChatGPT or whatever could have been created by most competent and skilled software developers, i.e. nothing ground breaking or world changing has been created by people using Claude or ChatGPT (at least not as far as I know, please correct me if I am wrong).
However, this is different with regards to the iPhone or the light bulb, they were truly historic and world changing “creations”.
As far as I am concerned, it doesn’t really matter if you were the true “creator” of a certain product, software or invention, as long as you manage to sort of market the product and convince other people of the value of said product or invention (and as long it holds actual value to people).
Sire but where was all this before AI? I don’t remember soaby PC ports and thebkne that where where slow. No its coming out within a week of title being released.
That’s a slippery slope, not crediting the actual creators of a new thing. Making something famous and getting recognition for doing that is fine if that’s what happened, but taking credit for the creation of something is a shitty thing to do if you took it from someone else. Its dishonest and should be discouraged
If you think calling AI users “creators” is bad, then let me remind you it was normalized the moment people called
Steve Jobs the creator of Apple computers and the iPhoneEdison the creator of anything at all. Edison was the first archetypical techbro, and Steve Jobs was the first modern techbro.This has been going on for centuries. Scientists’ staff doing all the work of proving an idea. Same for physicians. Artists, also…a ton of people in their employ doing the actual art executing the artists’ ideas. The big name gets the glory while those under them hope to get noticed enough to go out on their own and repeat the process. These days it still happens, plus we have managers and CEO’s taking credit for the employees doing all the work of making something happen. Hell, I bet the guy that had the idea to build the Pyramids had hundreds of what constituted engineers and artisans of the day build the things and said “Look what I made!”
Very similar situation in science as well, most big name professors are actually managers of 20+ people groups and as far as I have seen, most ideas come from lower down the totem pole. Not saying that they don’t contribute, it takes a lot of time and effort to get from a new idea/discovery to fully developed concept but nontheless the payoff is much more in the professors favor.
Speaking of, if you ever get to the Valley of the Kings in Egypt, make sure to check out the tombs of the craftsmen who actually built the tombs for the kings. They’re just outside the Valley of the Kings, arguably just as beautiful, and mostly ignored by tourists.
In my opinion, there is an important difference, though: The software that people “create” with Claude, ChatGPT or whatever could have been created by most competent and skilled software developers, i.e. nothing ground breaking or world changing has been created by people using Claude or ChatGPT (at least not as far as I know, please correct me if I am wrong). However, this is different with regards to the iPhone or the light bulb, they were truly historic and world changing “creations”.
As far as I am concerned, it doesn’t really matter if you were the true “creator” of a certain product, software or invention, as long as you manage to sort of market the product and convince other people of the value of said product or invention (and as long it holds actual value to people).
Sire but where was all this before AI? I don’t remember soaby PC ports and thebkne that where where slow. No its coming out within a week of title being released.
That’s a slippery slope, not crediting the actual creators of a new thing. Making something famous and getting recognition for doing that is fine if that’s what happened, but taking credit for the creation of something is a shitty thing to do if you took it from someone else. Its dishonest and should be discouraged