As others have said I took this to mean generative AI as this is the convention used, and by context was clear here (precisely because AGI has not been claimed by most providers)
>You likely are referring to plagiarism slurry
The option that this generative AI is plagiarism is not supported by the law, not the majority of public opinion. There are many, probably a majority, who wish there to be a form of compensation for having their works trained upon. Quite a large number believe that consent should be required. From what I have experienced, only a few consider this to rise to the level of plagiarism.
To pass off a work as wholly your own would require claiming no generative AI use. While this is done occasionally. Few instances of AI use declare that it has not been used.
There is a mistaking of nomenclature here, but it may be purposeful by the tech oligarchs. Artificial general intelligence is usually abbreviated "AGI". The "GenAI" shorthand is usually meaning "generative AI", but it may have been coined intentionally as a nod to supposed future general intelligence built on the same technology.
> Also the dogma is "AI is inevitable so you better just get used to it and start using it or you will be left behind."
A someone who today handed his notice in as a dev, in preference to going full-on AI at a company that is determined to become a meat relay farm ("AI at the heart of everything we do!!!!!" -- new CEO, whose name it might be disrespectful that I don't remember), even someone like me who doesn't want to play that way can see that they're is definitely some truth in that dogma. I'm resigned to maybe never earning more than menial wages again, and if you refuse to get up to speed I think it'll get you that way too. Of course I expect is to get half of those who _are_ up to speed just as badly in the medium/long term. Programmers and such will be commodity workers like those in the service industry once almost anyone can do it, with the exception of a lucky minority.
> But if that were true, why would it be necessary to force the inevitable thing on everyone everywhere?
Because the people selling the inevitable thing want to force their version of it on you before others do, or force theirs into the mindset of those already converted but using something else, in the hope that when/if you do pay for a subscription it will be with them instead of the others.
> Also the dogma is "AI is inevitable so you better just get used to it and start using it or you will be left behind."
> But if that were true, why would it be necessary to force the inevitable thing on everyone everywhere?
To argue as devil's advocate (advocatus diaboli [1]): It is indeed true that AI is inevitable, so you better just get used to it. But we want you to get used to our AI and not to come competitor's, so we force the inevitable thing on everyone everywhere, so that the inevitable thing that you get used to is our thing, and not the competitor's thing.
That reminds me a lot of how the Communist Party consolidated power in the Soviet Union: The future demanded by our ideology is inevitable, so everyone better get on board. The ones who aren't part of that future might as well die out. If they resist the inevitable, we'll just have to use force.
You can pay a significant premium for a "business" TV but the cost effective option is to get a consumer grade television and never allow it to connect to the internet.
It's still a good idea to add one if you want other people to use the software. With a licence you have the right to the minimum of (that licence | public domain), without one you have to risk it may be fully proprietary. We still don't have a good international agreement on the resulting LLM code rights.
At least in part because it does not exist, oligarch marketing notwithstanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligenc...
You likely are referring to plagiarism slurry.
reply