4 ms·
You're giving AI too much credit, it's just a tool, it does not have it's own intentions. I.e. if you buy a piano or a guitar, you could play and record copyri
by aj3 5y ago
You're giving AI too much credit, it's just a tool, it does not have it's own intentions.
I.e. if you buy a piano or a guitar, you could play and record copyrighted music on it. That's not piano's or guitar's fault though, it's yours.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- sillysaurusx 5y agoIt sounds like you might be the one giving it too much credit. AI is a glorified markov chain, which is essentially a compression algorithm. I agree that it can be an instrument (I've done it: https://soundcloud.com/theshawwn/sets/ai-generated-videogame-music https://soundcloud.com/theshawwn/sets/ai-generated-videogame...) but it's almost trivial to train a model that memorizes by rote. Suppose a model was trained solely on a single Beatles album. It could only spit out that album. That would be clear infringement, wouldn't it?
- toxik 5y agoIt’s funny that people say it’s a glorified Markov chain. No. It’s not. A Markov chain has some very specific properties that are absolutely not fulfilled by GPT-3 models. Just say “stochastic” if you want a buzzword. Stop appropriating Markov chains.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago“It’s a stochastic” doesn’t flow, though I guess I could use "stochastic random walk." What properties does a gpt-3 model have that a Markov chain doesn’t? (Other than effectiveness.)
- exdsq 5y agoANNs aren't Markov chains
- sillysaurusx 5y agoWell, yes. And apples aren't oranges, but they share a lot of similar traits. "Given a prompt, provide a completion" is what a Markov chain does. GPT-3 is exactly the same, in the sense that apples and oranges both satisfy your hunger.
- tomrod 5y agoIs calculator.exe the equivalent to TI-84?
- sillysaurusx 5y agoI would say that a TI-84 is a glorified calculator.exe. The TI-84 is usually more effective, but they’re both calculators.
- toxik 5y agoWillfully misunderstanding your interlocutor seems ungracious, you apparently know stochastic is an adjective, so why did you try to use it as a noun? GPT-3 is conditioned on the entire input sequence as well as its own output, which is strictly NON-MARKOVIAN. In fact, the point in saying something is Markovian is exactly that: the state transition probability only depends on the current state.
- immibis 5y agoBut the current state could include all of the last N output tokens.
- immibis 5y agoActually GPT-3 is a Markov chain. A Markov chain is a very general term. Just because the simplest ones are stupid, doesn't mean there aren't smarter ones. A Markov chain is a model where: (1) there is a state, (2) the probabilities of the next state depend only on the current state. That could describe anything from a wet fart to a deterministic computer to GPT-3 to the human mind to quantum mechanics (the real one, not a simulation). If I unplug the Internet and all USB devices, my computer is a Markov chain with at least several trillion bits of state, so 2^(several trillion) possible states. And there is one next state, which has a probability of 1, and all other possible states have a probability of 0. That's a Markov chain. GPT models choose the next word probabilistically, with the probabilities chosen by feeding the previous N words into a neural network. That sounds like a Markov chain to me!
- alkonaut 5y agoA typewriter vs. a machnine that recites paragraphs of shakespeare are two different things.
- j4yav 5y agoNeither of them unbind the content from the original license, though.
- koonsolo 5y agoWhen I press 1 key and it plays copyrighted music, that is the piano's fault.
- aj3 5y agoEven if hypothetically there was such a strange bug in your piano and you decided to exploit it by recording copyrighted music and redistributing it, you would be accountable for it, not a piano. This analogy train went too far, don't you think? All examples that I've seen on Twitter require quite an intentional manipulation by human for Copilot to produce something copyrighted. It does not recite Linux code by pressing 1 key.
- hnmullany 5y agoIf you have an electronic piano that requires a complex series of button pushes to produce copyrighted music - that's still a copyright violation. Copyright law has no notion that the difficulty of reproducing copyrighted content effects the fact of a violation.
- akersten 5y ago> an electronic piano that requires a complex series of button pushes to produce copyrighted music Surely a judge presented with the "complex series of button pushes," otherwise known as playing an instrument, would hold the player accountable for any infringement and not the piano? These analogies have gone so far off the rails that I can't tell which side this thread is arguing for by now ;)
- b3morales 5y agoI think the whole swirling discussion is a little confused because there are potentially two "ends" where infringement could happen, and different people are talking about each. And the article covers both. One end is GitHub's, at the input: Copilot's "database" was initialized from code that GitHub does not have copyright to. The contention at this end is that they are ignoring the licenses that would grant them the right to use that code.* The article, GitHub, and others assert that there's no copyright issue for creating a database of this kind (a machine learning model). The other end is the the developer taking Copilot's output. The article seems to take the (absurd IMO) position that there's also no copyright implications here, because the output is not copyrightable at all. *And personally this is the side that concerns me most.
- alex_c 5y agoFunny you should say that, as there is a direct line connecting player pianos in the 19th century to copyright law in the 21st: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license