4 ms·

Favorite-ing your comment to see if you end up being right. My opinion is the tools are here, whether we like it or not, so AI as a thing will remain in some f

Favorite-ing your comment to see if you end up being right. My opinion is the tools are here, whether we like it or not, so AI as a thing will remain in some form, it's just that these efforts where people train on anyone else's content is where things fall apart and thus it will not look like how it looks today, where you have a company or a community effort that provides a NN trained on other people's data. Instead, the data generators and the AI trainers will have to be the same person or entity (company). If I for example trained an LLM on the code I've generated since I was 16 and made a nooberminGPT, it would be fine because I won't sue myself. The only other way things could generally work is like how artists sign their copyrights to be owned by a company or publisher, basically people or entities will have to sell their content to be trained instead of it being trained on for free...And then we'll see old fashioned exploitation, basically people being suckered into contracts where they sign their life away, but it will be on paper as opposed to now where it's the wild west and you can take anyone's content without asking.

doctorpangloss 3y ago
> If I for example trained an LLM on the code I've generated since I was 16 and made a nooberminGPT, it would be fine because I won't sue myself. That's like saying you don't need IRB approval to inject yourself with your experimental research chemicals. That's true, but it's impracticable. It's as rare as monkeys taking pictures of themselves, which did produce an interesting but objectively bullshit copyright registration decision. It might as well be random at that scale. nooberminGPT is impracticable because GPTs won't generalize on your tiny dataset, if that's all they're trained on. Making your own math is impracticable, your own alternative to transformers, because you need commercial-entity-scale resources to run that research program. Nobody could have proven that transformers work as well as they do without all the unpermissioned data, and we're talking about it only because it was proven to work. I mean transformers were just as powerful when they were first conceived as Python code, in an objective sense, but we're talking about it because of the data. And if you allow that something changed between that stuff entering the researcher's consciousness and actually reacting to the results of experiments on unpermissioned data, which is definitely true, transformers and diffusers are irreparably tainted. > where it's the wild west and you can take anyone's content without asking. Like long term, if you put something on the Internet, you are implicitly saying that people can do whatever the fuck they want with it. Video games, as an industry and creative pursuit, have evolved, in a Darwinian way, within that objective reality for a long time. And consequently the multiplayer backend servers are highly protected, the clients are free, there's a thriving indie scene of easily pirated games, there's a thriving first party market of expensive prestige single player titles, and the video game industry is huge and makes tons of money, and it has no more (or fewer) exploited creatives toiling in it than any other creative industry, except that they are compared to novelists, actors and directors, always toiling away in obscurity. All of this works. That Hollywood and book publishers are struggling to innovate monetization at all isn't really the copyright office's problem; that these models can generate images and text, which directly threatens Hollywood and doesn't really move the needle on video games, is also not really the copyright office's problem. The AI stuff is a red herring for deeper problems.

doctorpangloss 3y ago

> If I for example trained an LLM on the code I've generated since I was 16 and made a nooberminGPT, it would be fine because I won't sue myself. That's like saying you don't need IRB approval to inject yourself with your experimental research chemicals. That's true, but it's impracticable. It's as rare as monkeys taking pictures of themselves, which did produce an interesting but objectively bullshit copyright registration decision. It might as well be random at that scale. nooberminGPT is impracticable because GPTs won't generalize on your tiny dataset, if that's all they're trained on. Making your own math is impracticable, your own alternative to transformers, because you need commercial-entity-scale resources to run that research program. Nobody could have proven that transformers work as well as they do without all the unpermissioned data, and we're talking about it only because it was proven to work. I mean transformers were just as powerful when they were first conceived as Python code, in an objective sense, but we're talking about it because of the data. And if you allow that something changed between that stuff entering the researcher's consciousness and actually reacting to the results of experiments on unpermissioned data, which is definitely true, transformers and diffusers are irreparably tainted. > where it's the wild west and you can take anyone's content without asking. Like long term, if you put something on the Internet, you are implicitly saying that people can do whatever the fuck they want with it. Video games, as an industry and creative pursuit, have evolved, in a Darwinian way, within that objective reality for a long time. And consequently the multiplayer backend servers are highly protected, the clients are free, there's a thriving indie scene of easily pirated games, there's a thriving first party market of expensive prestige single player titles, and the video game industry is huge and makes tons of money, and it has no more (or fewer) exploited creatives toiling in it than any other creative industry, except that they are compared to novelists, actors and directors, always toiling away in obscurity. All of this works. That Hollywood and book publishers are struggling to innovate monetization at all isn't really the copyright office's problem; that these models can generate images and text, which directly threatens Hollywood and doesn't really move the needle on video games, is also not really the copyright office's problem. The AI stuff is a red herring for deeper problems.