3 ms·

Still pretty pricey for average person, but these will trend cheaper and why I think it's futile to "regulate" AI. Someone somewhere will train models on anyth

by gedy 4y ago

Still pretty pricey for average person, but these will trend cheaper and why I think it's futile to "regulate" AI. Someone somewhere will train models on anything visible to public, licensed or not. Feels like Pandora's box has been opened and we need to deal with it.

adam_arthur 4y ago
The companies that wait for a 100% "clean" model are going to get left behind. e.g. ChatGPT launching despite Google, Meta and others already having very similar technology internally
- sp332 4y ago
  There is already a class action lawsuit. The companies that move forward with "dirty" models can be wiped out by legal fees before they got off the ground.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - operatingthetan 4y ago
    Doesn't that kind of action cause organizations to be less transparent about the sources of their models then?
  - mullingitover 4y ago
    This will likely just entrench the companies with pockets deep enough to satisfy the lawyers in the class action suits. It might burn down a startup. On the other hand, if Microsoft thinks it's a potential $500 billion business, a $1 billion settlement is just table stakes.
    - Sebguer 4y ago
      This ignores that a legal remedy can be "you can no longer offer this as a product".
      - dfadsadsf 4y ago
        Has this ever happen in practice for well funded company outside Napster case? I am skeptical that training on publicly accessible data can be ruled illegal. Too many side effects including making Google Search problematic.
      - mullingitover 4y ago
        That likely wouldn't be on the table in a settlement offer, and it might be a tough sell for the plaintiff class to get nothing or a protracted legal battle instead of an easy and significant payout. Anything is possible, but I don't think a lawsuit's likely outcome in this situation would be a scorched earth fight.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    That just means it will happen outside the us wherever laws aren’t enforced (China, Russia, etc.)
anon291 4y ago
As usual, AI has no agency. I believe we should view AI as simply an extension of our own agency. Thus, if you prompt an AI to generate copyrighted work, that's fine. Viewing it yourself is like imagination. However, just as you can draw mickey mouse for your own fun all you want, you cannot sell such images.
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  That’s kindof already the case. Ignoring the legality of GitHub Copilot itself, if it suggests code that violates copyright and you use it, you are (probably most likely[a]) still infringing. You can’t hide behind “the AI did it.” [a]: Of course, IANAL, and it’s up to the courts

by gedy 4y ago

adam_arthur 4y ago

The companies that wait for a 100% "clean" model are going to get left behind. e.g. ChatGPT launching despite Google, Meta and others already having very similar technology internally

sp332 4y ago
There is already a class action lawsuit. The companies that move forward with "dirty" models can be wiped out by legal fees before they got off the ground.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- operatingthetan 4y ago
  Doesn't that kind of action cause organizations to be less transparent about the sources of their models then?
- mullingitover 4y ago
  This will likely just entrench the companies with pockets deep enough to satisfy the lawyers in the class action suits. It might burn down a startup. On the other hand, if Microsoft thinks it's a potential $500 billion business, a $1 billion settlement is just table stakes.
  - Sebguer 4y ago
    This ignores that a legal remedy can be "you can no longer offer this as a product".
    - dfadsadsf 4y ago
      Has this ever happen in practice for well funded company outside Napster case? I am skeptical that training on publicly accessible data can be ruled illegal. Too many side effects including making Google Search problematic.
    - mullingitover 4y ago
      That likely wouldn't be on the table in a settlement offer, and it might be a tough sell for the plaintiff class to get nothing or a protracted legal battle instead of an easy and significant payout. Anything is possible, but I don't think a lawsuit's likely outcome in this situation would be a scorched earth fight.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  That just means it will happen outside the us wherever laws aren’t enforced (China, Russia, etc.)

anon291 4y ago

As usual, AI has no agency. I believe we should view AI as simply an extension of our own agency. Thus, if you prompt an AI to generate copyrighted work, that's fine. Viewing it yourself is like imagination. However, just as you can draw mickey mouse for your own fun all you want, you cannot sell such images.

colejohnson66 4y ago
That’s kindof already the case. Ignoring the legality of GitHub Copilot itself, if it suggests code that violates copyright and you use it, you are (probably most likely[a]) still infringing. You can’t hide behind “the AI did it.” [a]: Of course, IANAL, and it’s up to the courts