3 ms·
I would say, treat the AI like a human viewing said data/material, but unlike the majority of humans, most dont have Kim Peek levels of observation and recall,
by darkclouds 3y ago
I would say, treat the AI like a human viewing said data/material, but unlike the majority of humans, most dont have Kim Peek levels of observation and recall, so should there be some sort of expiration of data built into AI's and if so, should it be a blanket cut off date for all data an AI has been exposed to, or allow for some specialisation like a human might have in order to fulfil their occupation?
I'm also aware that search engines have access to data, most humans do not, which gives the search engines an advantage, think accessing ft.com for example, so should AI's have access to data in the context of a search engine or as a human?
Its tough, I want to give AI's full access to see what the tech is truly capable of, but I'm aware this will lead to more global monopolies over and above the existing search engine monopolies allowed to dominate in a country or territory, which will harm smaller AI entities.
- idle_zealot 3y agoIt's funny to see this copyright overreach as somehow opposed to monopolies. Should using data to train AI models be made illegal then the only entities capable of affording it would be global monopolies (and maybe pirates? Though the compute necessary may be prohibitive). There would be no way for smaller AI entities to compete.
- gremlinsinc 3y agoIf a human author is allowed to read and cite other works in their new composition. For example a Stephen King book referencing another author or famous book like Lord of the rings, then ai should be allowed to do the same as provide similar outputs that Stephen King would come to organically. if it's just using themes, show me any book that's not got derivative parts in it at all.