4 ms·

There is no "taking data" going on. Nobody is going into your private locker and training on your painting, music or cooking recipes. If you put your "work" ou

There is no "taking data" going on. Nobody is going into your private locker and training on your painting, music or cooking recipes. If you put your "work" out in the world, anyone who views it, is automatically training their brains on it. Viewing is training.

kranke155 3y ago
Ok, so reproduce me a Picasso. You've seen one right?
- test6554 3y ago
  Obligatory My first grader can do that.
- WithinReason 3y ago
  AI can't reproduce a Picasso exactly either. That's the main reason the lawsuit was dismissed according to TFA.
kranke155 3y ago
It's funny to me that we haven't reached AGI or anywhere near it, but when we talk about training Diffusion models, suddenly they're "just like a person" for legal reasons. Same thing that happened on the construction of the "corporation as a person", built on top of rulings made to protect African Americans.
- EnergyAmy 3y ago
  That's like saying "it's funny to me that this baby can't drive a car, but we still call it a 'person'". We've achieved AGI, it's just yet a baby. Only a few years ago, if you wanted a model that could complete a task, you'd have to train a model specific to that task. GPT-4 can do a large variety of tasks without being specifically trained on them, i.e. it's suitable for a wide range of general tasks. Yeah, it sucks at some of them, but focusing on that is short-sighted. Look at the progress made from just a few years ago and where it's going, especially with multimodality and increased compute power.
  - kranke155 3y ago
    My point is this is still a machine. Running analogies on top of metaphors, you can justify everything. This thing is a machine intelligence. My point is that a machine intelligence to be equivalent to humans in every law is curiously never mentioned, except when it is advantageous to the owners of said machine. Or are we saying that we can't turn off GPT-4 at this point, because following your metaphor, we would be committing murder or abortion? Again, you can't reason using metaphors and inferences and analogies. It's not helpful.
    - EnergyAmy 3y ago
      It's pretty obvious that we should be considering whether or not it's ethical to turn off AI. Even if most people think it's OK right now, that will likely change as these models get more capable, exactly similar to the differing opinions on abortion. > except when it is advantageous to the owners of said machine. That's just not true. You're ignoring vast amounts of discussion on the topic, particularly the discussions had when Blake Lemoine claimed that LaMDA was sentient. There's no reason to dismiss all that just because you're dead set on assuming everyone involved in AI is up to no good.
JoshTriplett 3y ago
> If you put your "work" out in the world, anyone who views it, is automatically training their brains on it. Viewing is training. A perfectly reasonable view for humans, since you shouldn't be able to copyright a brain. Not at all a reasonable view for a computer, until we also get to freely use all the copyrighted works ourselves. The problem here is that AI training is asymmetric: the people training an AI use works in violation of their licenses, but don't let their own works be used in the same way. For instance, Microsoft uses code on GitHub to train Copilot, but you still don't get to freely the source code of Windows or GitHub. I am absolutely in favor of eliminating copyright and patent law. I am not in favor of keeping it around while letting AI become a laundering mechanism to get around it. AI training should not get to uniquely ignore copyright; copyright should cease to exist.
myaccountonhn 3y ago
AIs and humans are not the same, why do people keep grouping them together and assume the same logic should apply?
- kranke155 3y ago
  [flagged]
- ben_w 3y ago
  1. Nobody really knows what box to put AI in, because nobody's had decent ones until very recently. 2. Despite the differences, the similarities are rhetorically convincing for many. I recon there will be a lot of bad analogies for the next decade at least.
- EnergyAmy 3y ago
  No two people are exactly the same, but we group them together in various ways. The question to ask is "for a particular purpose, should they be treated with the same reasoning?". For the purpose of creating new art from experiencing previously created art, why should we treat them differently?
  - myaccountonhn 3y ago
    The purpose of the copyright law is to reward authors through property rights for their work to protect them against theft and incentivizes them to be able to earn a living from their work too. That does not happen if someone can take the work, feed it as extra data to a statistics machine and earn money from their work without their permission. If AI training should be fair use has nothing to do about how it works (search engines fall under fair use regardless of if they think or not) but the effects it have on the original author. So when people talk about humans and AIs "doing the same thing", AIs are not legal entities like humans are to begin with, the entire premise is moot.

kranke155 3y ago

Ok, so reproduce me a Picasso. You've seen one right?

test6554 3y ago
Obligatory My first grader can do that.
WithinReason 3y ago
AI can't reproduce a Picasso exactly either. That's the main reason the lawsuit was dismissed according to TFA.

kranke155 3y ago

It's funny to me that we haven't reached AGI or anywhere near it, but when we talk about training Diffusion models, suddenly they're "just like a person" for legal reasons. Same thing that happened on the construction of the "corporation as a person", built on top of rulings made to protect African Americans.

EnergyAmy 3y ago
That's like saying "it's funny to me that this baby can't drive a car, but we still call it a 'person'". We've achieved AGI, it's just yet a baby. Only a few years ago, if you wanted a model that could complete a task, you'd have to train a model specific to that task. GPT-4 can do a large variety of tasks without being specifically trained on them, i.e. it's suitable for a wide range of general tasks. Yeah, it sucks at some of them, but focusing on that is short-sighted. Look at the progress made from just a few years ago and where it's going, especially with multimodality and increased compute power.
- kranke155 3y ago
  My point is this is still a machine. Running analogies on top of metaphors, you can justify everything. This thing is a machine intelligence. My point is that a machine intelligence to be equivalent to humans in every law is curiously never mentioned, except when it is advantageous to the owners of said machine. Or are we saying that we can't turn off GPT-4 at this point, because following your metaphor, we would be committing murder or abortion? Again, you can't reason using metaphors and inferences and analogies. It's not helpful.
  - EnergyAmy 3y ago
    It's pretty obvious that we should be considering whether or not it's ethical to turn off AI. Even if most people think it's OK right now, that will likely change as these models get more capable, exactly similar to the differing opinions on abortion. > except when it is advantageous to the owners of said machine. That's just not true. You're ignoring vast amounts of discussion on the topic, particularly the discussions had when Blake Lemoine claimed that LaMDA was sentient. There's no reason to dismiss all that just because you're dead set on assuming everyone involved in AI is up to no good.

JoshTriplett 3y ago

> If you put your "work" out in the world, anyone who views it, is automatically training their brains on it. Viewing is training. A perfectly reasonable view for humans, since you shouldn't be able to copyright a brain. Not at all a reasonable view for a computer, until we also get to freely use all the copyrighted works ourselves. The problem here is that AI training is asymmetric: the people training an AI use works in violation of their licenses, but don't let their own works be used in the same way. For instance, Microsoft uses code on GitHub to train Copilot, but you still don't get to freely the source code of Windows or GitHub. I am absolutely in favor of eliminating copyright and patent law. I am not in favor of keeping it around while letting AI become a laundering mechanism to get around it. AI training should not get to uniquely ignore copyright; copyright should cease to exist.

myaccountonhn 3y ago

AIs and humans are not the same, why do people keep grouping them together and assume the same logic should apply?

kranke155 3y ago
[flagged]
ben_w 3y ago
1. Nobody really knows what box to put AI in, because nobody's had decent ones until very recently. 2. Despite the differences, the similarities are rhetorically convincing for many. I recon there will be a lot of bad analogies for the next decade at least.
EnergyAmy 3y ago
No two people are exactly the same, but we group them together in various ways. The question to ask is "for a particular purpose, should they be treated with the same reasoning?". For the purpose of creating new art from experiencing previously created art, why should we treat them differently?
- myaccountonhn 3y ago
  The purpose of the copyright law is to reward authors through property rights for their work to protect them against theft and incentivizes them to be able to earn a living from their work too. That does not happen if someone can take the work, feed it as extra data to a statistics machine and earn money from their work without their permission. If AI training should be fair use has nothing to do about how it works (search engines fall under fair use regardless of if they think or not) but the effects it have on the original author. So when people talk about humans and AIs "doing the same thing", AIs are not legal entities like humans are to begin with, the entire premise is moot.