- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- technology@beehaw.org
Executives working on AI at Microsoft and OpenAI admitted what its critics have been saying all along: Large language models are predatory pieces of technology that have been built on what a Microsoft executive called “an astonishing theft of unprecedented proportions,” and the “largest theft of labor in human history.” An internal Microsoft document said generative AI products have created a “doom loop” that is killing “the entire web.”
Those statements and a series of other mask-off moments feature heavily in an unredacted court filing that was unsealed Thursday in the behemoth New York Times vs OpenAI copyright lawsuit that has been winding its way through the court system for years. In a filing asking for summary judgment (basically, a filing with the court asking it to rule), lawyers for the New York Times laid out a series of admissions made by Microsoft and OpenAI executives in documents and depositions that until now had remained either sealed or redacted at the request of Microsoft and OpenAI.
It’s easy to see why the AI companies wanted to hide this from the public. The statements, taken together, are some of the most damning indictments of the ways LLMs were trained, how they worked, and the immediate threat they pose to human labor. It is a reminder that even as AI becomes more powerful and companies try to shift the narrative to the supposed existential risk of “superintelligent” AI, the tools they have already built were created by stealing from human creativity and labor and are by definition existential threats to the human labor market.



Because it was generated by a llm.
I did a search for the torque spec on a castle nut last week and the second result was for a nut (as in, food nuts that you eat) website and the llm had gone all in on nuts and added a page about castle nuts. It even generated an image of a castle for the top because… castle nut.
It proceeded to provide vague instructions and a torque recommendation of 2x the actual spec.
Then there was the other one about a small 4 stroke engine where it stated “other sites will say you don’t need to mix oil with gas but you absolutely must!” (You don’t and shouldn’t) … I wonder how many people have fucked up their shit by trusting llm garbage without knowing better.
Running into this same problem but with parenting. My wife is constantly asking me to “Google if it’s good/bad if our baby is doing” X. And I’ll find 20 slopposts from dozens of “parenting” websites that all give conflicting answers. This week, I asked my parents for their copy of Dr. Spock’s Baby and Childcare because we need some solid reference. Sorry kiddo, you’re going to get raised like it’s 1987 because 2026 sucks.
Just give the baby a cigarette. It lubricates the lungs.
Juice that baby’s lungs up with a succulent Camel.
1987 not 1957
Ah right. Give the baby cocaine, it improves circulation.
Try the 1940’s when the book was first published. Most of what he said, like talking to and listening to your kids and treating them like a human is really good. After a quick review of criticism it doesn’t appear there is much worthwhile other than some of his earlier views that did change later on (like male circumcision).
I can’t even fathom that level of frustration. At least I can only muck up a part or maybe an engine… not a little human : /
Sorry bud, and good luck.