"Ethical use of generative AI" discusses the wrong subjects and it's the AI industry using the "CO2 footprint" trick all over again.

There's an interesting insight in the podcast discussion linked below.

Right now, there's a lot of discourse about the "ethical use of (generative) AI". You'll also find job offers and government grants about this topic and a slew of research institutes and NGOs putting their focus on it.

But: This "ethics" discussion is usually around the end user's use cases. It's the end user who supposedly decides whether using (generative) AI is ethical or not. It's the end user who chooses right or wrong and will be judged for it.

We're making fun of those weak people forming friendships or falling in love with "their" chatbot, we're making fun of the lazy students failing to learn. It's their individual moral failure of having chosen the wrong way to use generative AI.

However, the questionable ethical choices happened prior to this, the power lies with the company offering the generative AI product - which is intentionally forcing to use AI onto the end user, with addictive dark UI patterns.

The "ethical use of (generative AI)" discourse is therefore a repeat of the "CO2 footprint" trick that the fossil industry used to avoid regulation and shift responsibility for the industry's negative societal consequences onto the end consumer.

https://omny.fm/shows/it-could-happen-here/how-ai-companies-are-monetizing-intimacy-ft-bridget-todd