8 ms·
Imagine how outraged authors would have been if people read their books, read other author's books, and then combine what they had learned to create new combina
by troupe 3y ago
Imagine how outraged authors would have been if people read their books, read other author's books, and then combine what they had learned to create new combination of thoughts. Or if someone were to create a new painting based on things they had learned from studying a previous artist. Truly awful that technology is doing this thing that has never happened before in the history of humanity.
- bakugo 3y agoCame here expecting to see the usual nonsense "b-but computers are exactly like people and deserve the same rights!" comment, was not disappointed.
- throwaway5959 3y agoWhere else would you source large amounts of text but from human authors?
- notamy 3y agoAsking those human authors for their consent. "It doesn't scale!" or similar reasons don't override someone not consenting.
- throwaway5959 3y agoThat’s not what I was asking.
- chii 3y ago> Asking those human authors for their consent. they consented by virtue of publishing the work. If a human eye can read it, then consent has been given.
- bakugo 3y agoNo, I'm pretty sure that publishing a work does not imply that you also consent to other people taking it and selling it as their own.
- chii 3y ago> selling it as their own. and there you've just put your own words into my post. Nowhere did the idea of selling comes into this (nor distribution of any kind). If you publish, you implicitly allow people to purchase and read your book. The information and ideas learnt off that book is not subject to copyright.
- mslt 3y agoIf you think open AI purchased all of this content I’ve got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn
- troupe 3y agoThey are consenting to letting people understand the ideas in their work and using those ideas combined with other ideas to produce different ideas.
- rideontime 3y agoMaybe you don't.
- gaganyaan 3y ago[flagged]
- DangitBobby 3y agoNew version of Godwin's law: any use of the word Luddite to "win" an argument about AI means the argument is over and you automatically lost.
- drabiega 3y agoI've seen several varieties of this idea several times, and it always seems pretty straw-mannish to me. No one is asserting that computers themselves should have rights. But their users certainly do. If it is legal for me, a human person, to do something inside my own brain, why would it not also be legal for me to do a rough approximation of the same thing inside my computer?
- chii 3y agoThe luddite argument is understandable for sure, but it is not in the advantage of progress to stall the development of ai with pseudo copyright concerns that are really just disguising the idea that such progress will displace existing people who currently derive benefit from the status quo.
- alphanullmeric 3y agoBoo hoo, you aren’t a victim when a computer scans your drawings. You don’t have the right to an image, and you don’t get to support intellectual “property” laws only when they benefit you.
- 127 3y agoI think there is a lot more nuance between these two polarities. People are more important than machines, even when machines reproduce the exact steps of how people learn.
- chii 3y ago> People are more important than machines what does 'important' mean here? If the machine can reproduce the process of learning, there should not be a law to prevent such learning from happening. Just like there wasn't a law to prevent the looms from operating while there are weavers out there.
- akasakahakada 3y ago[flagged]
- camillomiller 3y agoWhen I read comments like yours I wonder what’s more arrogant, shortsighted and asinine—- thinking so high of stupid stochastic machines or diminishing the complexity of human brain interactions as if the brain was just a machine as well. In both cases I’m just sorry for you.
- troupe 3y agoPerhaps I'm arrogant, shortsighted and asinine. On the other hand, maybe it isn't so crazy to think that patterns of language do in some way represent thought and feeding lots of written language into a language model that is designed to mimic the process of expressing ideas in the way that the brain synthesizes new ways of expressing things based on it's experience, isn't a process completely different than what humans are doing when they study and then write. That isn't to say that the computer knows what it is doing and it isn't to say that the computer isn't going to produce a lot of nonsense. But even random markov chain babbling will sometimes produce interesting sentences that make you stop and think. The meaning is in the mind of the reader. If we think of LLMs as a large mixing pot that combines ideas from vast numbers of written sources in what is often mundane, but may occasionally spark a thought or an imaginative creative leap that humans haven't yet made, they become just another tool that humans can use to think and sometimes see things differently.
- wodenokoto 3y agoIn that case, people would probably have bought the book before reading. I don't think authors should get royalties on GPT output, and I also don't think OpenAI needs special licensing deals in order to train, but I get that they should at least buy the books.
- jejones3141 3y agoLibraries bring author $$$/reader down considerably.
- cegras 3y agohttps://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05... > For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office's understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material. Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist—they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output.
- manuelabeledo 3y agoIt is debatable that LLMs are really "creating" anything, but we can agree that they aren't advanced enough to "think".