3 ms·

> why shouldn't it take away the job? Because in context of the current generation of "AI" , i.e the ChatGPT cohort, all that it's doing is "given a very large

> why shouldn't it take away the job? Because in context of the current generation of "AI" , i.e the ChatGPT cohort, all that it's doing is "given a very large number of examples of this text, generate one more that fits the prompt". It's nothing without the training data. And the training data is the output of people's jobs. If you called it "distributed plagiarism" would that make the problem with the idea that AI replaces the need for the writers more apparent? It can not, but it might replace the need to _pay them_ for the contribution, as it's further from the end product. https://www.zmescience.com/science/chatgpt-stocastic-parrot/ https://www.zmescience.com/science/chatgpt-stocastic-parrot/ https://apnews.com/article/openai-lawsuit-authors-grisham-george-rr-martin-37f9073ab67ab25b7e6b2975b2a63bfe https://apnews.com/article/openai-lawsuit-authors-grisham-ge... The same applies to the DALL-E cohort of image generators: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/open-letter-urges-publishers-not-to-use-ai-generated-illustrations-2294392 https://news.artnet.com/art-world/open-letter-urges-publishe...

chii 3y ago
> It's nothing without the training data. And the training data is the output of people's jobs. so do you not claim that a student learning off textbooks or teachers are also doing "distributed plagiarism"? > but it might replace the need to _pay them_ for the contribution assuming the training data is paid for via a one time fee, or was using material that was publicly available to be learnt off, the contribution is already paid for. There's no possibility of a royalty payment with AI generated content.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  > so do you not claim that a student learning off textbook No, these are not the same. A student has mental faculties that ChatGPT does not. The understanding-free predictive text processing of ChatGPT is the whole deal of that software. A student does not require 10 thousand textbooks as examples in order to understand a concept. Students do exhibit originality and reasoning that is not in the training data. You should not equate them. > assuming the training data is paid for via a one time fee Why would you assume that, when the links provided make it clear that this did not happen?
  - michaelmrose 3y ago
    The human is far better at distributed plagiarism but given the definition the human is certainly as guilty. If you removed all of humanities writing and language and raised a million ignoramuses it would be quite a while before you got Shakespeare v2 centuries at minimum.
- triceratops 3y ago
  > so do you not claim that a student learning off textbooks or teachers are also doing "distributed plagiarism"? Make the AI pay taxes, sleep 10 hours a night, and start off with thousands of dollars in student debt, then we'll talk.

chii 3y ago

> It's nothing without the training data. And the training data is the output of people's jobs. so do you not claim that a student learning off textbooks or teachers are also doing "distributed plagiarism"? > but it might replace the need to _pay them_ for the contribution assuming the training data is paid for via a one time fee, or was using material that was publicly available to be learnt off, the contribution is already paid for. There's no possibility of a royalty payment with AI generated content.

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
> so do you not claim that a student learning off textbook No, these are not the same. A student has mental faculties that ChatGPT does not. The understanding-free predictive text processing of ChatGPT is the whole deal of that software. A student does not require 10 thousand textbooks as examples in order to understand a concept. Students do exhibit originality and reasoning that is not in the training data. You should not equate them. > assuming the training data is paid for via a one time fee Why would you assume that, when the links provided make it clear that this did not happen?
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  The human is far better at distributed plagiarism but given the definition the human is certainly as guilty. If you removed all of humanities writing and language and raised a million ignoramuses it would be quite a while before you got Shakespeare v2 centuries at minimum.
triceratops 3y ago
> so do you not claim that a student learning off textbooks or teachers are also doing "distributed plagiarism"? Make the AI pay taxes, sleep 10 hours a night, and start off with thousands of dollars in student debt, then we'll talk.