4 ms·

The output of human copyrighted work wouldn't exist if it weren't for humans training on the output of other humans. Humans constantly use cliches in their wri

The output of human copyrighted work wouldn't exist if it weren't for humans training on the output of other humans. Humans constantly use cliches in their writing and speech, and most of what they produce is a repackaged version of what someone else has written or said, yet no one's up in arms against this mass of unoriginality as long as it's human-generated. This is anti-AI bias, pure and simple.

mattigames 4y ago
It's a bit more nuanced than that, what I mean is that the slow speed at which humans learn it's a foundation block of our society, if suddenly some new race of humans emerged that could read an entire book in a couple of minutes and achieve lifelong superhuman retention and assimilation of all that knowledge then we would have the exact same type of concerns than what we have today about AI, including how easily they could recreate high quality art, music and anything else with just a tiny fraction of the effort that the rest of us need to reach similar results.
- whateveracct 4y ago
  Startup technologists have been acting like speed of actions doesn't matter for decades. If a person can do it, why shouldn't a computer do it 1000x faster? What could go wrong? It's always been a poor argument at best and a bad faith one at worst.
  - mattigames 4y ago
    Well said. The mindless automation away of everything has only one logical conclusion in which the creators of such automations are automated themselves, and even if the optimists are right and we never get there it doesn't matter, the chaos it can make just by getting closer at faster rates than society can adapt is unprecedented, specially given that the population count is at all times high and there are many other simultaneous threats that need our attention (e.g. climate change)
rebuilder 4y ago
Human works are granted copyright so humans can profit from their creative endeavours (I’m not getting into whether this is good or not). No-one cares about an algorithm in the same way.
edgyquant 4y ago
This is irrelevant, full stop. We care about humans, AI is a tool and your bias comment is either ignorant or dishonest.
nathan_compton 4y ago
AI are not people and the idea that you can be biased against them is hardly a foregone conclusion. Like maybe one day when we have AGI, but ChatGPT ain't that.
soulofmischief 4y ago
Most definitely. Good luck telling the difference between traditional and AI-empowered art in the near future. It's just a new tool for artists, and this anti-AI sentiment towards copyright is only going to hurt individual artists, while doing nothing for large corporations with enough money to play the game.
cycomanic 4y ago
There is a difference between a computer and a human and we tried them already differently in copyright law. For example copying a program from disk into memory is typically already considered a copy on a computer (hence many licences grant you the licence to do this copy), no such licence is required for a human.
EntrePrescott 4y ago
> This is anti-AI bias, pure and simple. ^ found the AI-based Chatbot

mattigames 4y ago

It's a bit more nuanced than that, what I mean is that the slow speed at which humans learn it's a foundation block of our society, if suddenly some new race of humans emerged that could read an entire book in a couple of minutes and achieve lifelong superhuman retention and assimilation of all that knowledge then we would have the exact same type of concerns than what we have today about AI, including how easily they could recreate high quality art, music and anything else with just a tiny fraction of the effort that the rest of us need to reach similar results.

whateveracct 4y ago
Startup technologists have been acting like speed of actions doesn't matter for decades. If a person can do it, why shouldn't a computer do it 1000x faster? What could go wrong? It's always been a poor argument at best and a bad faith one at worst.
- mattigames 4y ago
  Well said. The mindless automation away of everything has only one logical conclusion in which the creators of such automations are automated themselves, and even if the optimists are right and we never get there it doesn't matter, the chaos it can make just by getting closer at faster rates than society can adapt is unprecedented, specially given that the population count is at all times high and there are many other simultaneous threats that need our attention (e.g. climate change)

rebuilder 4y ago

Human works are granted copyright so humans can profit from their creative endeavours (I’m not getting into whether this is good or not). No-one cares about an algorithm in the same way.

edgyquant 4y ago

This is irrelevant, full stop. We care about humans, AI is a tool and your bias comment is either ignorant or dishonest.

nathan_compton 4y ago

AI are not people and the idea that you can be biased against them is hardly a foregone conclusion. Like maybe one day when we have AGI, but ChatGPT ain't that.

soulofmischief 4y ago

Most definitely. Good luck telling the difference between traditional and AI-empowered art in the near future. It's just a new tool for artists, and this anti-AI sentiment towards copyright is only going to hurt individual artists, while doing nothing for large corporations with enough money to play the game.

cycomanic 4y ago

There is a difference between a computer and a human and we tried them already differently in copyright law. For example copying a program from disk into memory is typically already considered a copy on a computer (hence many licences grant you the licence to do this copy), no such licence is required for a human.

EntrePrescott 4y ago

> This is anti-AI bias, pure and simple. ^ found the AI-based Chatbot