3 ms·
The point I was trying to illustrate is that we're applying an antiquated system of justice to a new world. That antiquated system focuses on blame and punishme
by dheera 3y ago
The point I was trying to illustrate is that we're applying an antiquated system of justice to a new world. That antiquated system focuses on blame and punishment, instead of solutions.
If we focus on solutions, it doesn't matter who is responsible for reproducing copyrighted material. If we stop thinking about blaming and focus on solutions, those solutions could include (a) giving fair credit or payment to the creator of material (b) continued training of the algorithm to be more creative and not spit out copyrighted material verbatim.
If a high school student plaigarizes, do you: (a) spank them and put them under detention, or (b) give them pathways to discover their own form of creativity and preferred form of expression so that they have no interest in plaigarizing? Most people of the past do (a) but I'd say (b) is much more constructive, effective, and beneficial to society.
Now with that in mind, and getting off the blaming psychology of the past, how do you implement (b) with an AI? You add loss functions that are specifically discourage plaigarism, loss functions that reward creativity, etc. and retrain. Now we're talking.
- almatabata 3y agoOk so you would argue if the AI gets caught reproducing copyrighted material the company should get time to re-train the AI instead of getting sued to hell?
- dheera 3y agoYes, 100%. That's how we advance science as fast as possible. Focus on fixes, not suing.
- bugglebeetle 3y agoIf OpenAI was interested in “advancing science,” all of their research and models would be publicly available. Since they’re not, your appeal to this is entirely specious.