5 ms·

> This post and others uses a lot of flowery language to point out that we train artificial neural networks and real neural networks in different ways. OK, grea

> This post and others uses a lot of flowery language to point out that we train artificial neural networks and real neural networks in different ways. OK, great. I don't think anyone is saying that's not true. What I am saying is that it's irrelevant Maybe I was too aulic. The point is: you don't train "your artificial intelligence", because you're not an artificial intelligence, you train your whole self, that is a system, a very complex system. So you can think in terms of "I don't like death, I don't want to display death" You can learn how to paint using your feet, if you have no hands. You can be blind and still paint and enjoy it! An AI cannot think of "not displaying death" in someone's face, not even if you command it to do it, because it doesn't mean anything, out of context. > Jackson Pollock Jackson Pollock is the classic example to explain the concept: of course you can make the same paintings Jackson Pollock made. But you'll never be Jackson Pollock, because that trick works only the first time, if you are a pioneer. If you create something that look like Pollock, everybody will tell you "oh... it reminds of Jackson Pollock..." and no one will say "HOW ORIGINAL!" Like no one can ever be Armstrong again, land on the Moon and say "A small step for man (etc etc)" Pollock happened, you can of course copy Pollock, but nobody copies Pollock not because it's hard, but because it's cheap AF So it's the premise that is wrong: you are not training, you are learning. They are very different concepts. AIs (if we wanna define the "intelligent") are currently just very complex copy machines trained on copyrighted material. Remove the copyrighted material and their output would be much less than unimpressive (probably a mix of very boring and very ugly). Remove the ability to watch copyrighted material from people and some of them will come up with an original piece of art. It happened many times throughout history.

idiotsecant 4y ago
You're typing a lot in these posts but literally every point you're making here is orthogonal to the actual discussion, which is why utilizing the end product of exposing an AI to copyrighted material and exposing a human to copyrighted material are morally distinct.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > which is why utilizing the end product of exposing an AI to copyrighted material and exposing a human to copyrighted material are morally distinct. sorry for writing in capital letters, maybe that way they will stand out enough for you to focus on what's important. WE ARE NOT AIS an AI is the equivalent of a photocopier or sampling a song to make a new song, there are limits on how much you can copy/use copyrighted material, that do not apply TO YOUR HEARS, because you hearing a song does not AUTOMATICALLY AND MECHANICALLY translates into a new song. You still need to LEARN HOWTO MAKE MUSIC, which is not about the features of the song, it's about BEING ABLE TO COMPOSE MUSIC. which is not what these AI do, they cannot compose music, they can mix and match features taken from copyrighted material into new (usually not that new, nor good) material. If we remove the copyrighted material from you, you can still make music. You could be deaf and still compose music. If we remove copyrighted material from AIs they cannot compose shit. Because the equivalent of a deaf person for an AI that create music CANNOT EXIST - for obvious reasons. So AIs DEPEND ON copyrighted material, they don't just learn from it, they WOULD BE USELESS WITHOUT IT. and morally the difference is that THEY DO NOT PAY for the privilege of accessing the source material. They take, without giving anything back to the artists. They do not even ask for the permission. is it clearer now?
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
    I'll try to address your underlying thought, and hope I'm getting it right. I think you are right to be skeptical and cautious in the face of claims of AI progress. From as far back as the days of the Mechanical Turk, many such claims have turned out to be puffery at best, or outright fraud at worst. From time to time, however, inevitably, some claims have actually proven to be true, and represent an actual breakthrough. More and more, I'm beginning to think that the current situation is one of those instances of a true breakthrough occurring. To the surface point: I do not think the current proliferation of generative AI/ML models are unoriginal per se. If you ask them for something unoriginal, you will naturally(?) get something unoriginal. However, if you ask them for something original, you may indeed get something original.
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago

idiotsecant 4y ago

You're typing a lot in these posts but literally every point you're making here is orthogonal to the actual discussion, which is why utilizing the end product of exposing an AI to copyrighted material and exposing a human to copyrighted material are morally distinct.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> which is why utilizing the end product of exposing an AI to copyrighted material and exposing a human to copyrighted material are morally distinct. sorry for writing in capital letters, maybe that way they will stand out enough for you to focus on what's important. WE ARE NOT AIS an AI is the equivalent of a photocopier or sampling a song to make a new song, there are limits on how much you can copy/use copyrighted material, that do not apply TO YOUR HEARS, because you hearing a song does not AUTOMATICALLY AND MECHANICALLY translates into a new song. You still need to LEARN HOWTO MAKE MUSIC, which is not about the features of the song, it's about BEING ABLE TO COMPOSE MUSIC. which is not what these AI do, they cannot compose music, they can mix and match features taken from copyrighted material into new (usually not that new, nor good) material. If we remove the copyrighted material from you, you can still make music. You could be deaf and still compose music. If we remove copyrighted material from AIs they cannot compose shit. Because the equivalent of a deaf person for an AI that create music CANNOT EXIST - for obvious reasons. So AIs DEPEND ON copyrighted material, they don't just learn from it, they WOULD BE USELESS WITHOUT IT. and morally the difference is that THEY DO NOT PAY for the privilege of accessing the source material. They take, without giving anything back to the artists. They do not even ask for the permission. is it clearer now?
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  I'll try to address your underlying thought, and hope I'm getting it right. I think you are right to be skeptical and cautious in the face of claims of AI progress. From as far back as the days of the Mechanical Turk, many such claims have turned out to be puffery at best, or outright fraud at worst. From time to time, however, inevitably, some claims have actually proven to be true, and represent an actual breakthrough. More and more, I'm beginning to think that the current situation is one of those instances of a true breakthrough occurring. To the surface point: I do not think the current proliferation of generative AI/ML models are unoriginal per se. If you ask them for something unoriginal, you will naturally(?) get something unoriginal. However, if you ask them for something original, you may indeed get something original.
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago