8 ms·
My Books Were Used to Train AI
- Ephil012 3y agohttps://archive.ph/cvkPt https://archive.ph/cvkPt
- politelemon 3y agoThis is frustrating, I'm stuck in a captcha loop on the site and can't get past it.
- entropie 3y agoSame.
- 0xcde4c3db 3y agoNot sure if it ties into a captcha loop specifically, but I've seen a couple allegations that the site owner deliberately sabotages users of 1.1.1.1 and 9.9.9.9.
- blondie9x 3y agoSame here. This poor site is getting pounded. Any alternatives available in case archive goes down?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- seydor 3y agoThe reverse would have been worrisome
- farts_mckensy 3y ago[flagged]
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y agoAs long as people are reacting to the metaphor, there will be authors who will unscrupulously use and abuse it. Actually, it has nothing to do with AI. It's a statement by the author that they believe the consciousness is a product of the brain and nothing more. That view reduces humans to machines, the only difference being in the material.
- nimbleal 3y agoAgree it has nothing to do with AI. Even if we, for the sake of argument, agree that human beings are machines, why should the appearance of human-mimicking reasoning imply sentience above and beyond any other (complex?) computation? Why are LLMs possibly sentient and not, say, pocket calculators?
- johnnyworker 3y agoThen let the people who are so much smarter make their own art and writings, and train their creations on that. Crazy idea, huh? As Bill Hicks said: play from your fucking heart. It doesn't have to be deep, but it has to be something you express. It doesn't matter, at all, if someone else said the same thing before. If a human says or does something, I potentially care. If a model outputs something I find interesting, I am interesting in my thoughts about it, not in the model, because I know for a fact there is nobody on the other side. Anything can create novel output. If anything, the opposite is impossible: even if you make an exact copy of something, it will not be in the same place at the same time. So that's no useful criterion for anything, and it's rich to call "sentience" a nebulous concept -- yeah, we can't define it, but we all experience it, and having a name and a complete definition for it would not make it one iota more real than it already is -- while talking about "novel output" as if that means anything interesting or useful whatsoever.
- farts_mckensy 3y agoPeople will inevitably continue to train models as they see fit. Nothing can stop that now. Creativity is a set of algorithms that can be mimicked, learned, and reproduced by a machine. Holding onto a deep-seated preference for humanism is limiting your perspective. Works should be judged on their own terms, not their origins. And in the near future, the lines between human-created art, collaborative human-AI art, and solely AI-generated art will blur. The point is, soon enough, you will not be able to tell the difference between art created solely by humans, art that is a product of the combined efforts of humans and AI, and art that was made solely by AI.
- gmuslera 3y agoHe now have the perfect opportunity to write an story of sentient book souls being devoured by evil AIs.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- adolph 3y agoSteven King writes "I have said in one of my few forays into nonfiction (On Writing) that you can’t learn to write unless you’re a reader, and unless you read a lot. AI programmers have apparently taken this advice to heart." Reminds me of: After his father angrily asks him how he learned to use drugs, the son shouts, "You, alright?! I learned it by watching you!" As the father recoils from realizing the error of his own ways, a narrator then intones, "Parents who use drugs, have children who use drugs." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_learned_it_by_watching_you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_learned_it_by_watching_you!
- IKantRead 3y agoI do find it interesting how little in the larger AI art conversation the idea of borrowing already exists in various art forms and each art forms unique culture of accepting this comes up. In folk music for example, performing someone else's work is not disparaged at all historically. It was common for most musicians to travel around and teach each other songs. In pop music we see sampling has increasingly become a major part of the art, and only really controversial when someone tries to avoid paying the original artist their fair share (which is itself a topic of debate). In the visual arts it's much different. There is of course the famous Picasso quote: 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' But even in the tone of that quote you can tell there's a different cultural acceptance of reusing work. Writing is tricky because referencing or quoting another author without attribution is a common feature of "high brow" works. T.S Eliot for example borrows heavily form past authors, often without attribution, but assuming an audience which knows enough to not require attribution. However at the other extreme you can get in trouble for plagiarizing your own work. Personally I think Diffusion models and LLMs are just bringing up an issue in the visual and literary arts that was already forced to the attention of musical artists during the rise of early hiphop djs who showed that you can genuinely create something new nearly entirely by cut and pasting existing works. One thing I would point out: It seems to me that copying/borrowing/reusing are equally present in all creative fields, they just are willing to admit it to different degrees.
- __loam 3y agoI think the frustrating thing about this when people being up that "good artists steal", they don't really understand why artists are upset by this technology. Artists are happy to teach other people how to make art. They're generally fine with people looking at their work to develop their own skills because that's how the field sustains itself. Art is a skill and a culture. You become an artist by participating. AI art systems are alienating in comparison. A group of people who are not artists basically showed up without talking to anyone and is trying to displace the original culture, by using work that they extracted from that culture. The entire attitude from the AI art community is hostile. "Why would you keep drawing now that we've automated it?" It's a gross viewpoint that devalues an entire cultural enterprise and a major portion of human experience.
- sillysaurusx 3y agoWow. Stephen King wrote about my work. I’m a little star struck. I didn’t have this on my 2023 bingo card.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Vicinity9635 3y agoEverybody's everything is being used to train "AI". That was the reason for twitter going logged-in-only. Multiple companies were trying to download all of twitter at the same time to train their models. Reddit put walls up for the same reason, though as usual they lied about why they were making reddit worse. That's just the state of the Internet right now: If you have a large dataset of reasonably quality content, it's going to get slurped up to train models.
- officeplant 3y ago>Reddit put walls up for the same reason, though as usual they lied about why they were making reddit worse. So it was just a convenient side effect that it killed off all the good third party apps to push people towards their app.
- js8 3y agoSo perhaps we need to require that commercial models trained on public data be also made public?
- Vicinity9635 3y ago[dead]
- horsawlarway 3y agoWhich is vaguely funny, and feels like a gut response from the business side of the house without understanding the real tech. If you shut your data off, but then sell it to be used to generate an LLM, you have then given your data away again. In the simplest case, as the weights directly. In the harder cases, as the use case it's being applied to solve... ex: if you make an excellent gardening help chat bot, I can clone yours by training my chat bot on your chat bot (which is what a ton of the open/free models are doing right now). I now have the "jpg" version of your dataset. Is it as good? Meh, probably not. Is it good enough? Almost certainly. So basically my addendum to your comment is really: > That's just the state of the Internet right now: If you have a large dataset of reasonably quality content, it's going to get slurped up to train models. And then those models are getting slurped up to train open models. There IS NO MOAT!!!
- robbywashere_ 3y agoinformation wants to be free
- gumballindie 3y agoso does money, yet we dont go around stealing it
- __loam 3y agoHave any of you guys actually read a whole novel that was written by AI?
- horsawlarway 3y agoI've read whole "stories" written by AI (in the low thousands of words). They're usually pretty terrible. I can't imagine a novel's length of it. That said, having played with the LLMs - they are super helpful for doing things like bouncing conversations off a "character", or describing a scene for me, or just being whacky idea generators. I think it's similar to the stable-diffusion side of things, it's going to make some authors more productive, but it won't necessarily replace the need for an author. (whether that leads to more or less authors long term is a related, but tangential, question and influenced by a lot of non-ai society factors).
- __loam 3y agoThat's the impression I've been getting. AI lowered the barrier to entry of just generating a large body of text and self-publishing, but there are more subtle market dynamics at play here than people seem to realize.
- horsawlarway 3y ago> AI lowered the barrier to entry of just generating a large body of text and self-publishing Honestly, most of the generated stuff I've seen at length (as in, more than 1 or 2 page lengths of content) just devolves to gibberish. The words and sentences are syntactically correct, but mostly irrelevant or meaningless in the context of the story as a whole. It's like reading a collage of stories jammed together with no real artistry. You can self publish that (people do) but it's not really much improved on the old scam of just publishing copy-pasta bullshit. I think there can be space for LLMs to do things here, but right now they are absolutely not a replacement for an author with a story they want to tell. They are more like a calculator: If you have a clear picture of a scene/character/setting, the LLM can flesh out a lot of options for you to pick and choose from to best match your intent. It does mundane work in support of your goal - it has no goal itself.
- Animats 3y agoThis subject always makes me think of that most prescient novel, Colossus, by D. F. Jones. In it, the world-spanning computer does become sentient and tells its creator, Forbin, that in time, humanity will come to love and respect it. (The way, I suppose, many of us love and respect our phones.) Forbin cries, “Never!” But the narrator has the last word, and a single word is all it takes: “Never?”
- kristianp 3y agohttps://archive.is/cvkPt https://archive.is/cvkPt