5 ms·

I would like to take the devil's advocate approach & argue the opposite. Not because I believe it but looking to learn. If I go to your writing, I read it & le

I would like to take the devil's advocate approach & argue the opposite. Not because I believe it but looking to learn. If I go to your writing, I read it & learn from it. Your writing influences my future writing. We've been okay with this as long as it's not a blatant forgery. If a computer goes to your writing, it reads it & learns from it. Your writing influences its future writing. It seems we are not okay with this, even if it isn't blatant forgery. -- I think arguments can be made that computers are different because of their ability for much larger data sets & speed in learning. I'm not sure it's 100% fair to say a human can learn but a computer that a human uses can't learn. I am tossing around the idea in my head that this is different because the company is re-using your material to create a product they are going to sell. I'm not sure if I believe that is so different than a human employee doing the same thing. -- Personal rant, I'm curious how this effects original writing vs duplicated content we currently see. It does seem original writing is rare & we're already drowning in people trying to become social media influencers in their niches by re-using content that's been copied over & over again with very little change.

blamestross 4y ago
I'm totally chill with humans reading and stealing from each other. I'm not ok with cooperations automating and capitalizing on it.
- andybak 4y ago
  So - with me as an individual and not a corporate entity - you're OK if I generate AI derived from your creative output?
  - blamestross 4y ago
    If you run the algorithm entirely on the pile of fat in your skull, YES!
    - andybak 4y ago
      But that's very different to what you said previously: > I'm totally chill with humans reading and stealing from each other. I'm not ok with cooperations automating and capitalizing on it. Where do you draw the line? I've used AI in very subtle ways in creative projects. Would you object to 1% use of AI? 10%? Or are you saying "no training at all no matter what the end-use will be"?
      - blamestross 4y ago
        There isn't a hard boundary between "somebody messing around, learning, and making art" and "capital holders stealing from everyone" but my real problem is the latter state of affairs, AI isn't really relevant to the morality of the situation just a means to an end. A situation where they use massive volumes of labor to the same ends would have similar issues (ignoring the obvious human rights violations). The only problem AI has is that it makes abuse more efficient.
thatoneguytoo 4y ago
The problem is that AI is infinitely scalable. Yes, I can get inspired by your writing, but I won't be able to replace you by churning out huge number of articles. AI can. Scale changes (and should change) how things are done.
- skerit 4y ago
  So when something becomes too efficient, it should be banned in order to save existing career paths?
  - danShumway 4y ago
    I commented similarly elsewhere, but we already do this with robots.txt and bot detection. What, I shouldn't be able to visit a website if I'm too efficient and fast at visiting it? I shouldn't be able to buy tickets to an event or preorder a device if I'm faster than the person next to me? I don't think AI should be banned, but I don't find the "it's just more efficient" argument particularly compelling because there are a ton of examples in the real world of us banning (either legally, socially, or technologically) automation purely because that automation is more efficient than a human being; everything from automated website access, to game botting, to pre-ordering, to anti-spam measures on commenting platforms. Efficiency/scalability compared to basic human ability is a very common metric for us to use to determine whether a technology is "good" or "bad".
    - Terretta 4y ago
      I love that list because, in my view, each of those examples is "doing it wrong". Even game bots, where humans and robots compete head to head directly, should be able to be managed with a ladder system where the bots (representing skills of the self-force-multiplying humans behind them) end up at some level individual humans can't attain, so plain humans are left battling each other while automation humans' proxies battle in their own echelon. This would clarify a few things, such as, why a automator's hourly rate probably should be much higher than a piecework toil rate.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hamuraijack 4y ago
I think the difference is speed and throughput. When a human digests writing or artwork, even to produce derivative work, it's on the scale of hours, if not days. In the time that a human can produce 1 replica, an AI can produce thousands of works and deliver them to an audience of millions. And through the sheer network effect of the internet, it'll be impossible to remove any of these works, as they'll be replicated and reposted over and over again.
Devasta 4y ago
The difference is that humans have a finite work output. 50 shades of grey starts out as Twilight fanfic, but was released as a novel years after Twilight was. Twilight isn't harmed by the existence of 50 Shades. AI on the other hand can produce books all day every day, hundreds of them nonstop. The minute your book is released it can be fed into a model and have 1000 similar books out within days. It won't matter if yours is better, it'll be drowning in a sea of duplicates.
- Terretta 4y ago
  Monk scribe, meet Gutenberg. Same argument. Artificial scarcity in the face of a new efficiency has by-and-large never worked in the long run.
  - Devasta 4y ago
    Those aren't even slightly the same and you know it.
    - Terretta 4y ago
      On the contrary, in this analogy, the warehouse scale offices full of low income content mill authors are exactly the monasteries of yore.
  - gray_charger 4y ago
    That's a false equivalency. One is a comparison of methods to mass produce the same text. AI produces very similar but unique works. One enables an author to reach a wider audience, the other kills authors by drowning their works in a sea of similar low quality knock offs.
  - danShumway 4y ago
    > meet Gutenberg We literally invented an entirely new property right out of thin air just because of the printing press; a human-made right that radically changed almost the entirety of the commercial creative industry and tech industry from that point onward, and radically changed what people are allowed to do today with content that they own, even outside of automated settings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright Do you really want to compare AI to the printing press? For better or worse, the law responded pretty hard to Gutenberg.
busssard 4y ago
for me the biggest difference is the fact that the AI can be commercialized without the need for any acknowledgement. It could not exist without the "inspiration" as you call it. But at the same time its throughput allows for massive gains of the person owning the model. So i would argue robots.txt is the wrong analogy. We rather need a licensing system for content. Apache, MIT, GNU etc for Blogentries, Pictures, Videos etc
- hooverd 4y ago
  If people want to argue that AI learns like a human, then creative rights should belong the AI model. If people want to argue that AI is a tool, then they should take those into consideration with their training data. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's completely orthogonal to copyright terms being way too long though.
CJefferson 4y ago
I don't think "fair" is a good word here. I'm happy to work from the basic principle that I want to society to be set up to make people's lives better, and I don't care about AIs, and I really don't care about AIs designed by multi-billion dollar companies. Unfortunately, I think this isn't a battle that can be won, as those multi-billion dollar companies can just buy laws that say they can slurp up everyone's information and train on it (such laws are currently being introduced in several countries).
- ryokeken 4y ago
  [dead]
hooverd 4y ago
What do you think about people deliberately making models based on an artists artwork (SamDoesArt) in order to deliberately copy their work and antagonize them? They've explicitly said that is their motivation too.

blamestross 4y ago

I'm totally chill with humans reading and stealing from each other. I'm not ok with cooperations automating and capitalizing on it.

andybak 4y ago
So - with me as an individual and not a corporate entity - you're OK if I generate AI derived from your creative output?
- blamestross 4y ago
  If you run the algorithm entirely on the pile of fat in your skull, YES!
  - andybak 4y ago
    But that's very different to what you said previously: > I'm totally chill with humans reading and stealing from each other. I'm not ok with cooperations automating and capitalizing on it. Where do you draw the line? I've used AI in very subtle ways in creative projects. Would you object to 1% use of AI? 10%? Or are you saying "no training at all no matter what the end-use will be"?
    - blamestross 4y ago
      There isn't a hard boundary between "somebody messing around, learning, and making art" and "capital holders stealing from everyone" but my real problem is the latter state of affairs, AI isn't really relevant to the morality of the situation just a means to an end. A situation where they use massive volumes of labor to the same ends would have similar issues (ignoring the obvious human rights violations). The only problem AI has is that it makes abuse more efficient.

thatoneguytoo 4y ago

The problem is that AI is infinitely scalable. Yes, I can get inspired by your writing, but I won't be able to replace you by churning out huge number of articles. AI can. Scale changes (and should change) how things are done.

skerit 4y ago
So when something becomes too efficient, it should be banned in order to save existing career paths?
- danShumway 4y ago
  I commented similarly elsewhere, but we already do this with robots.txt and bot detection. What, I shouldn't be able to visit a website if I'm too efficient and fast at visiting it? I shouldn't be able to buy tickets to an event or preorder a device if I'm faster than the person next to me? I don't think AI should be banned, but I don't find the "it's just more efficient" argument particularly compelling because there are a ton of examples in the real world of us banning (either legally, socially, or technologically) automation purely because that automation is more efficient than a human being; everything from automated website access, to game botting, to pre-ordering, to anti-spam measures on commenting platforms. Efficiency/scalability compared to basic human ability is a very common metric for us to use to determine whether a technology is "good" or "bad".
  - Terretta 4y ago
    I love that list because, in my view, each of those examples is "doing it wrong". Even game bots, where humans and robots compete head to head directly, should be able to be managed with a ladder system where the bots (representing skills of the self-force-multiplying humans behind them) end up at some level individual humans can't attain, so plain humans are left battling each other while automation humans' proxies battle in their own echelon. This would clarify a few things, such as, why a automator's hourly rate probably should be much higher than a piecework toil rate.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hamuraijack 4y ago

I think the difference is speed and throughput. When a human digests writing or artwork, even to produce derivative work, it's on the scale of hours, if not days. In the time that a human can produce 1 replica, an AI can produce thousands of works and deliver them to an audience of millions. And through the sheer network effect of the internet, it'll be impossible to remove any of these works, as they'll be replicated and reposted over and over again.

Devasta 4y ago

The difference is that humans have a finite work output. 50 shades of grey starts out as Twilight fanfic, but was released as a novel years after Twilight was. Twilight isn't harmed by the existence of 50 Shades. AI on the other hand can produce books all day every day, hundreds of them nonstop. The minute your book is released it can be fed into a model and have 1000 similar books out within days. It won't matter if yours is better, it'll be drowning in a sea of duplicates.

Terretta 4y ago
Monk scribe, meet Gutenberg. Same argument. Artificial scarcity in the face of a new efficiency has by-and-large never worked in the long run.
- Devasta 4y ago
  Those aren't even slightly the same and you know it.
  - Terretta 4y ago
    On the contrary, in this analogy, the warehouse scale offices full of low income content mill authors are exactly the monasteries of yore.
- gray_charger 4y ago
  That's a false equivalency. One is a comparison of methods to mass produce the same text. AI produces very similar but unique works. One enables an author to reach a wider audience, the other kills authors by drowning their works in a sea of similar low quality knock offs.
- danShumway 4y ago
  > meet Gutenberg We literally invented an entirely new property right out of thin air just because of the printing press; a human-made right that radically changed almost the entirety of the commercial creative industry and tech industry from that point onward, and radically changed what people are allowed to do today with content that they own, even outside of automated settings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright Do you really want to compare AI to the printing press? For better or worse, the law responded pretty hard to Gutenberg.

busssard 4y ago

for me the biggest difference is the fact that the AI can be commercialized without the need for any acknowledgement. It could not exist without the "inspiration" as you call it. But at the same time its throughput allows for massive gains of the person owning the model. So i would argue robots.txt is the wrong analogy. We rather need a licensing system for content. Apache, MIT, GNU etc for Blogentries, Pictures, Videos etc

hooverd 4y ago
If people want to argue that AI learns like a human, then creative rights should belong the AI model. If people want to argue that AI is a tool, then they should take those into consideration with their training data. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That's completely orthogonal to copyright terms being way too long though.

CJefferson 4y ago

I don't think "fair" is a good word here. I'm happy to work from the basic principle that I want to society to be set up to make people's lives better, and I don't care about AIs, and I really don't care about AIs designed by multi-billion dollar companies. Unfortunately, I think this isn't a battle that can be won, as those multi-billion dollar companies can just buy laws that say they can slurp up everyone's information and train on it (such laws are currently being introduced in several countries).

ryokeken 4y ago
[dead]

hooverd 4y ago

What do you think about people deliberately making models based on an artists artwork (SamDoesArt) in order to deliberately copy their work and antagonize them? They've explicitly said that is their motivation too.