The Jarod Lanier article this post links to is pretty interesting, though I still don't agree with all of its conclusions. (I don't trust a system that doles ou

The Jarod Lanier article this post links to is pretty interesting, though I still don't agree with all of its conclusions. (I don't trust a system that doles out money from OpenAI based on how much my creations train their models any more than I'd trust a plain UBI.) I like this bit in particular (emphasis mine): >A program like OpenAI’s GPT-4, which can write sentences to order, is something like a version of Wikipedia that includes much more data, mashed together using statistics. Programs that create images to order are something like a version of online image search, but with a system for combining the pictures. In both cases, it’s people who have written the text and furnished the images. The new programs mash up work done by human minds. What’s innovative is that the mashup process has become guided and constrained, so that the results are usable and often striking. This is a significant achievement and worth celebrating—but _it can be thought of as illuminating previously hidden concordances between human creations_, rather than as the invention of a new mind.