4 ms·

These kinds of arguments don’t convince me at all. Show me how it is completely different from what humans do. We regularly put everything we know through the b

These kinds of arguments don’t convince me at all. Show me how it is completely different from what humans do. We regularly put everything we know through the blender to come up with new “creative” artifacts.

anon84873628 3y ago
Show me how a backhoe is completely different from what humans with shovels do.
paulcole 3y ago
It doesn’t matter if the mechanic is identical or not. Think about handing a friend a thumb drive full of music versus downloading the same files from Napster. One of those activities can be sued out of existence.
- hollasch 3y ago
  Sorry, I had the "handing a friend a ~cassette tape~ thumb drive is a crime" pounded into my skull since the 80's. What's your point?
  - musicale 3y ago
    > handing a friend a ~cassette tape~ Never was a crime, but it's explicitly permitted by the AHRA (which also enacted a tape tax.) Unfortunately you may be out of luck on the thumb drive - you'd probably need to use DAT or "music" CD-R media, which include the Digital Audio Technology [DART] tax/royalty. (See also Apple's 2001-era Rip,Mix,Burn vs. 2023's Rent,Mix,Stream.) This is of course a bummer for DJs who would like to stream or distribute their sets and mixes.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    What’s a cassette tape?
danpalmer 3y ago
I have a lot of sympathy for these viewpoints, but I too find the discourse around LLMs to be lacking when it comes to differentiation from humans. "[LLMs] are just theft", "LLMs don't _know_ anything", "LLMs don't have a concept of truth", "LLMs aren't sentient", these are all statements that feel reasonable, but fall down when you consider that we don't have good scientific definitions for what knowledge is, what sentience is, what a sense of truth is, and so on. I do think that LLMs are very far from human level, but I also think we need to understand that humans aren't anything special, we're just one point on many axes, animals are at other points, and LLMs are somewhere else and trending towards something more like where humans are at.
fzeroracer 3y ago
What's the difference between a human being remembering someone exists and a photo of a person? They both do the same thing, so why should we regulate where, how and why photos are taken and used?
pier25 3y ago
Well a big difference is you cannot have a single human consume and remember everything ever written. Another big difference is that that human cannot be scaled so that it can chat with millions of people at the same time. Concentrating all knowledge into a single entity controlled by a for profit corporation using opaque methods will have consequences. Doesn't really matter if it's a biological or digital entity.
- twelve40 3y ago
  Exactly, humans learning is a manual, individual process of improving oneself, upskilling, and hopefully contributing back to the same field at a higher level. The other is industrial strip-mining of all information in the world for the benefit of a corporation and bulk de-valuing of human creation and contributions in the process. "Take all you can give nothing back".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- fennecfoxy 3y ago
  What if the AI is its own entity and not affiliated with a company/corporate? I feel like we very quickly start to approach "well humans can do this thing, but stinky AI is better at it so we should restrict AIs, they don't have the same rights as we do" something our species has historically been quite good at. I guess history does repeat itself, hmm.
qzw 3y ago
Human creators are regularly accused of plagiarism, and a common defense is to claim that one accidentally reproduced another work without realizing it. But that defense only works if the copying is very limited. If whole paragraphs are reproduced or the reproduction occurs multiple times, the human is usually considered a plagiarist. Should we judge AIs by the same criteria? If an AI is found to regurgitate some part of its training data on a semi-regular basis, should we consider it a plagiarism engine?
lisasays 3y ago
Show me how it is completely different from what humans do. Because nearly everything it generates ranges from, at best, trite and hackneyed (nearly all of its writing) to utterly meritless drivel (literally every AI-generated music sample I've heard). Human-generated content can also be quite disappointing - but the high end is very different from anything AI can (currently) create.

anon84873628 3y ago

Show me how a backhoe is completely different from what humans with shovels do.

paulcole 3y ago

It doesn’t matter if the mechanic is identical or not. Think about handing a friend a thumb drive full of music versus downloading the same files from Napster. One of those activities can be sued out of existence.

hollasch 3y ago
Sorry, I had the "handing a friend a ~cassette tape~ thumb drive is a crime" pounded into my skull since the 80's. What's your point?
- musicale 3y ago
  > handing a friend a ~cassette tape~ Never was a crime, but it's explicitly permitted by the AHRA (which also enacted a tape tax.) Unfortunately you may be out of luck on the thumb drive - you'd probably need to use DAT or "music" CD-R media, which include the Digital Audio Technology [DART] tax/royalty. (See also Apple's 2001-era Rip,Mix,Burn vs. 2023's Rent,Mix,Stream.) This is of course a bummer for DJs who would like to stream or distribute their sets and mixes.
- paulcole 3y ago
  What’s a cassette tape?

danpalmer 3y ago

I have a lot of sympathy for these viewpoints, but I too find the discourse around LLMs to be lacking when it comes to differentiation from humans. "[LLMs] are just theft", "LLMs don't _know_ anything", "LLMs don't have a concept of truth", "LLMs aren't sentient", these are all statements that feel reasonable, but fall down when you consider that we don't have good scientific definitions for what knowledge is, what sentience is, what a sense of truth is, and so on. I do think that LLMs are very far from human level, but I also think we need to understand that humans aren't anything special, we're just one point on many axes, animals are at other points, and LLMs are somewhere else and trending towards something more like where humans are at.

fzeroracer 3y ago

What's the difference between a human being remembering someone exists and a photo of a person? They both do the same thing, so why should we regulate where, how and why photos are taken and used?

pier25 3y ago

Well a big difference is you cannot have a single human consume and remember everything ever written. Another big difference is that that human cannot be scaled so that it can chat with millions of people at the same time. Concentrating all knowledge into a single entity controlled by a for profit corporation using opaque methods will have consequences. Doesn't really matter if it's a biological or digital entity.

twelve40 3y ago
Exactly, humans learning is a manual, individual process of improving oneself, upskilling, and hopefully contributing back to the same field at a higher level. The other is industrial strip-mining of all information in the world for the benefit of a corporation and bulk de-valuing of human creation and contributions in the process. "Take all you can give nothing back".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
fennecfoxy 3y ago
What if the AI is its own entity and not affiliated with a company/corporate? I feel like we very quickly start to approach "well humans can do this thing, but stinky AI is better at it so we should restrict AIs, they don't have the same rights as we do" something our species has historically been quite good at. I guess history does repeat itself, hmm.

qzw 3y ago

Human creators are regularly accused of plagiarism, and a common defense is to claim that one accidentally reproduced another work without realizing it. But that defense only works if the copying is very limited. If whole paragraphs are reproduced or the reproduction occurs multiple times, the human is usually considered a plagiarist. Should we judge AIs by the same criteria? If an AI is found to regurgitate some part of its training data on a semi-regular basis, should we consider it a plagiarism engine?

lisasays 3y ago

Show me how it is completely different from what humans do. Because nearly everything it generates ranges from, at best, trite and hackneyed (nearly all of its writing) to utterly meritless drivel (literally every AI-generated music sample I've heard). Human-generated content can also be quite disappointing - but the high end is very different from anything AI can (currently) create.