4 ms·

> So why do we care from where LLMs learn? same difference there is between painting your own fake Caravaggio and buying a fake Caravaggio (or selling the one

> So why do we care from where LLMs learn? same difference there is between painting your own fake Caravaggio and buying a fake Caravaggio (or selling the one you made). the second one is forgery, the first one is not.

blackhaz 3y ago
The way I see it is that with AI you have really painted your own Caravaggio, but instead of an electrochemical circuit of a human brain you've employed a virtual network.
- peoplefromibiza 3y ago
  > but instead of an electrochemical circuit of a human brain you've employed a virtual network. technically it is still a tool you are using, differently from doing it on your own, with your hands, using your own brain cells, that you trained over the decades, instead of using a virtual electronic brain pre-trained in hours/days by someone else on who knows what.
joncrocks 3y ago
And if you look at lots of paintings, and create a new painting which is in a very similar style to an existing painting? Is that a forgery? Have you infringed on the copyright on all the paintings you looked at?
- jprete 3y ago
  Why do people bring this up? People are not LLMs and the issues are not the same.
  - gaganyaan 3y ago
    Why are the issues not the same? Are you privileging meat over silicon?
    - ddingus 3y ago
      Yes they are. Most people will. They are not the same because an LLM is a construct. It is not a living entity with agency, motive, and all the things the law was intended for. We will see new law as this tech develops. For an analogy, many people call infringement theft and they are wrong to do so. They will focus on the someone getting something without having followed the right process part while ignoring the equally important someone else being denied the use of, or loss of property part. The former is an element in common between theft and infringement. And it is compelling! But, the real meat in theft is all about people losing property! And that is not common at all. This AI thing is similar. The common elements are super compelling. But it just won't be about that in the end. It will be all about the details unique to AI code.
      - gaganyaan 3y ago
        Using the word "construct" isn't adding anything to the conversation. If we bioengineer a sentient human, would you feel OK torturing it because it's "just a construct"? If that's unethical to you, how about half meat and half silicon? How much silicon is too much silicon and makes torture OK? > Most people will [privilege meat] "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals, and you know it". I agree that humans are likely to pass bad laws, because we are mostly just dumb, panicky dangerous animals in the end. That's different than asking an internet commentor why they're being so confident in their opinions though.
        ddingus 3y ago
        If we bioengineer: Full stop. We've not done that yet. When we do, we can revisit the law / discussion. We can remedy "construct" this way: Your engineered human would be a being. Being a being is one primary difference between us and these LLM things we are toying with right now. And yes, beings are absolutely going to value themselves over non beings. It makes perfect sense to do so. These LLM entities are not beings. That's fundamental. And it's why an extremely large number of other beings are going to find your comment laughable. I did! You are attempting to simplify things too much to be meaningful.
  - tracker1 3y ago
    I'd add to this, the damage an LLM could do is much less than a human could do in terms of individual production. A person can paint so many forgeries... A machine can create many, many more. The dilusion of value from a person learning is far different than machine learning. The value extracted and diluted is night and day in terms of scale. Not to say what will/won't happen. In practice, what I've seen doesn't scare me much in terms of what LLMs produce vs. what a person has to clean up after it's produced.
fxnn 3y ago
Okay if it’s about looking at one painting and fake that. However, if you train your model on billions of paintings and create arbitrary new ones from that, it’s just a statistical analysis on what paintings in general are made of. The importance of the individual painting diminishes at this scale.

blackhaz 3y ago

The way I see it is that with AI you have really painted your own Caravaggio, but instead of an electrochemical circuit of a human brain you've employed a virtual network.

peoplefromibiza 3y ago
> but instead of an electrochemical circuit of a human brain you've employed a virtual network. technically it is still a tool you are using, differently from doing it on your own, with your hands, using your own brain cells, that you trained over the decades, instead of using a virtual electronic brain pre-trained in hours/days by someone else on who knows what.

joncrocks 3y ago

And if you look at lots of paintings, and create a new painting which is in a very similar style to an existing painting? Is that a forgery? Have you infringed on the copyright on all the paintings you looked at?

jprete 3y ago
Why do people bring this up? People are not LLMs and the issues are not the same.
- gaganyaan 3y ago
  Why are the issues not the same? Are you privileging meat over silicon?
  - ddingus 3y ago
    Yes they are. Most people will. They are not the same because an LLM is a construct. It is not a living entity with agency, motive, and all the things the law was intended for. We will see new law as this tech develops. For an analogy, many people call infringement theft and they are wrong to do so. They will focus on the someone getting something without having followed the right process part while ignoring the equally important someone else being denied the use of, or loss of property part. The former is an element in common between theft and infringement. And it is compelling! But, the real meat in theft is all about people losing property! And that is not common at all. This AI thing is similar. The common elements are super compelling. But it just won't be about that in the end. It will be all about the details unique to AI code.
    - gaganyaan 3y ago
      Using the word "construct" isn't adding anything to the conversation. If we bioengineer a sentient human, would you feel OK torturing it because it's "just a construct"? If that's unethical to you, how about half meat and half silicon? How much silicon is too much silicon and makes torture OK? > Most people will [privilege meat] "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals, and you know it". I agree that humans are likely to pass bad laws, because we are mostly just dumb, panicky dangerous animals in the end. That's different than asking an internet commentor why they're being so confident in their opinions though.
      - ddingus 3y ago
        If we bioengineer: Full stop. We've not done that yet. When we do, we can revisit the law / discussion. We can remedy "construct" this way: Your engineered human would be a being. Being a being is one primary difference between us and these LLM things we are toying with right now. And yes, beings are absolutely going to value themselves over non beings. It makes perfect sense to do so. These LLM entities are not beings. That's fundamental. And it's why an extremely large number of other beings are going to find your comment laughable. I did! You are attempting to simplify things too much to be meaningful.
- tracker1 3y ago
  I'd add to this, the damage an LLM could do is much less than a human could do in terms of individual production. A person can paint so many forgeries... A machine can create many, many more. The dilusion of value from a person learning is far different than machine learning. The value extracted and diluted is night and day in terms of scale. Not to say what will/won't happen. In practice, what I've seen doesn't scare me much in terms of what LLMs produce vs. what a person has to clean up after it's produced.

fxnn 3y ago

Okay if it’s about looking at one painting and fake that. However, if you train your model on billions of paintings and create arbitrary new ones from that, it’s just a statistical analysis on what paintings in general are made of. The importance of the individual painting diminishes at this scale.