5 ms·

So specifically what is there except the sum total of our experiences and our genetics?

AlexandrB 3y ago
Even if this is true, the sum of a human's total experiences is far more vast than what LLMs are trained on and is mostly non-copyrighted material. Your eyes are open ~16 hours a day, constantly exposing your brain to various non-copyrighted stuff like trees, rocks, animals, the insides of your house, the crap on your desk, other people's faces, traffic, etc.
- corethree 3y ago
  Right. LLMs have content that isn't copyrighted too. But humans like LLMs do have copyrighted content. That means humans are breaking the law that LLMs are also breaking.
  - Riverheart 3y ago
    Human society is built around humans so there is a reason I’m allowed to store art and stories in my brain; I and the vast majority of people can do jack all with it, pose little threat to the owners if we could, would draw attention if we did, and it’s not worthwhile or feasible to sue an entire population of content consumers for consuming content so people act smart and pick and choose their battles so society can function. LLMs and diffusion models don’t “consume content” and the content they produce doesn’t come from inspiration, greed, boredom or any number of human traits. They don’t remember the Target logo to go shop there or a college class they took to apply for a job so they can be a tax paying member of society.
    - corethree 3y ago
      >LLMs and diffusion models don’t “consume content” and the content they produce doesn’t come from inspiration, greed, boredom or any number of human traits. No LLMs use a cold and calculating algorithm to produce content that it equivalent and at times Better than anything a human can produce. When a human consumes content produced by an LLM it is indistinguishable from content that came from inspiration, greed, boredom or any number of human traits. You can't tell. That is the future. We can identify flaws now but we all know those flaws will be rapidly disappearing. What the LLM tells us, what it teaches us, is that the human condition is trivial. We are a biological machines made out of wetware and the LLM is a solid state machine made out of silicon. Two machines that make content. We like to pretend that the stuff that comes from inspiration, greed or boredom as if those are things that have deep intrinsic meaning in the universe. No. It's a lie we tell ourselves. We make up the meaning, and so does the LLM. Society is fucking changing. Creativity, art, works of inspiration... all that stuff will become as common as water and plastic cups. That's just the way things are accept it or don't. But here's the thing. Don't pull justice into the mix. Don't say that a crime was committed because an LLM produced something better and faster than a human could. Don't call obviously original writing and original art a COPY when it is obviously NOT. These are the same tactics used by patent trolls. This is a twisting of justice because people are afraid. No different from how a patent troll twists justice because people want profit. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1136039656660684880/1169179290378702859/heynairb_the_most_original_piece_of_artwork_ever_9e3bad56-19bf-4ec8-b62c-e8c2e80a6ec8.png?ex=65547611&is=65420111&hm=5b3ed1c577012441cadc0facdaf572840869394d18bb7501a0549348b6651f22& https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1136039656660684880/1... here are four pieces of original art that I produced in 10 seconds using an LLM with the prompt: "the most original piece of art ever". Sue me!!
      - Riverheart 3y ago
        “Don't say that a crime was committed because an LLM produced something better and faster than a human could. Don't call obviously original writing and original art a COPY when it is obviously NOT. These are the same tactics used by patent trolls.” The law is arbitrary, written by humans, not by some platonic ideal inherent in the universe. It doesn’t need to be applied equally to people and tools. The people producing these models just want profit as much as any patent troll and like them will interpret the law in such a way that benefits them or fight to change it so they can realize that profit. It’s easier to go after the models and prevent copyright for AI generated works than to take issue with all of their users which is what we’re seeing in the courts. “Society is fucking changing” I agree with you there. I’m not fundamentally opposed to AI generated anything actually but the training is problematic and I don’t see society as ready for it. It would be an easier pill to swallow if we had a shortage of writers/artists/etc and this was the solution to that.
YurgenJurgensen 3y ago
"Experiences" and "content" are not equivalent. To take a very simple example: Go outside. Look at some geraniums. There are probably other examples, but red geraniums are pretty common and cheap in temperate climates. If you've been looking at screens for a long time, geranium petals look impossibly red. Red roses also work. Why is that? Because they're a real physical object whose colour properties cannot be accurately reproduced in an image using standard RGB colour. Even after billions of dollars of R&D and decades of research, the best sensors and screens in the world cannot still accurately reproduce the simple act of looking at a flower. And yet here you are claiming that these models that've been fed nothing but digitised facsimiles that we know can't even accurately represent common situations are equivalent to the experiences of living beings? Here's a common experience most people will have had: Think about what it feels like to slip and fall on a wet road and skin your palms on some gritty tarmac. Think about how many senses that involves, and how it's a basic experience most people have had. And now consider how we aren't even remotely close to the process of beginning to digitise such a basic experience.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  > Because they're a real physical object whose colour properties cannot be accurately reproduced in an image using standard RGB colour. 'Real physical objects' don't have 'colour properties', as grouping together certain wavelength ranges of EM radiation and then assigning them a 'colour' label is a human invention. For example, even if every human disappeared from Earth tomorrow, objects will still emit EM radiation, but won't emit human invented labels.
- corethree 3y ago
  Sure but the minute you look at copywrited work you made a copy of it in your brain and have broken the law.
  - hunter2_ 3y ago
    Isn't the more severe offense, and the one relevant here, more about distributing a recording than making a recording? Nobody will care if your brain has a copyrighted melody saved in it, but they'll care if you start putting it (or something substantially equivalent) all over the place where others can obtain it.

Even if this is true, the sum of a human's total experiences is far more vast than what LLMs are trained on and is mostly non-copyrighted material. Your eyes are open ~16 hours a day, constantly exposing your brain to various non-copyrighted stuff like trees, rocks, animals, the insides of your house, the crap on your desk, other people's faces, traffic, etc.

corethree 3y ago
Right. LLMs have content that isn't copyrighted too. But humans like LLMs do have copyrighted content. That means humans are breaking the law that LLMs are also breaking.
- Riverheart 3y ago
  Human society is built around humans so there is a reason I’m allowed to store art and stories in my brain; I and the vast majority of people can do jack all with it, pose little threat to the owners if we could, would draw attention if we did, and it’s not worthwhile or feasible to sue an entire population of content consumers for consuming content so people act smart and pick and choose their battles so society can function. LLMs and diffusion models don’t “consume content” and the content they produce doesn’t come from inspiration, greed, boredom or any number of human traits. They don’t remember the Target logo to go shop there or a college class they took to apply for a job so they can be a tax paying member of society.
  - corethree 3y ago
    >LLMs and diffusion models don’t “consume content” and the content they produce doesn’t come from inspiration, greed, boredom or any number of human traits. No LLMs use a cold and calculating algorithm to produce content that it equivalent and at times Better than anything a human can produce. When a human consumes content produced by an LLM it is indistinguishable from content that came from inspiration, greed, boredom or any number of human traits. You can't tell. That is the future. We can identify flaws now but we all know those flaws will be rapidly disappearing. What the LLM tells us, what it teaches us, is that the human condition is trivial. We are a biological machines made out of wetware and the LLM is a solid state machine made out of silicon. Two machines that make content. We like to pretend that the stuff that comes from inspiration, greed or boredom as if those are things that have deep intrinsic meaning in the universe. No. It's a lie we tell ourselves. We make up the meaning, and so does the LLM. Society is fucking changing. Creativity, art, works of inspiration... all that stuff will become as common as water and plastic cups. That's just the way things are accept it or don't. But here's the thing. Don't pull justice into the mix. Don't say that a crime was committed because an LLM produced something better and faster than a human could. Don't call obviously original writing and original art a COPY when it is obviously NOT. These are the same tactics used by patent trolls. This is a twisting of justice because people are afraid. No different from how a patent troll twists justice because people want profit. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1136039656660684880/1169179290378702859/heynairb_the_most_original_piece_of_artwork_ever_9e3bad56-19bf-4ec8-b62c-e8c2e80a6ec8.png?ex=65547611&is=65420111&hm=5b3ed1c577012441cadc0facdaf572840869394d18bb7501a0549348b6651f22& https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1136039656660684880/1... here are four pieces of original art that I produced in 10 seconds using an LLM with the prompt: "the most original piece of art ever". Sue me!!
    - Riverheart 3y ago
      “Don't say that a crime was committed because an LLM produced something better and faster than a human could. Don't call obviously original writing and original art a COPY when it is obviously NOT. These are the same tactics used by patent trolls.” The law is arbitrary, written by humans, not by some platonic ideal inherent in the universe. It doesn’t need to be applied equally to people and tools. The people producing these models just want profit as much as any patent troll and like them will interpret the law in such a way that benefits them or fight to change it so they can realize that profit. It’s easier to go after the models and prevent copyright for AI generated works than to take issue with all of their users which is what we’re seeing in the courts. “Society is fucking changing” I agree with you there. I’m not fundamentally opposed to AI generated anything actually but the training is problematic and I don’t see society as ready for it. It would be an easier pill to swallow if we had a shortage of writers/artists/etc and this was the solution to that.

YurgenJurgensen 3y ago

"Experiences" and "content" are not equivalent. To take a very simple example: Go outside. Look at some geraniums. There are probably other examples, but red geraniums are pretty common and cheap in temperate climates. If you've been looking at screens for a long time, geranium petals look impossibly red. Red roses also work. Why is that? Because they're a real physical object whose colour properties cannot be accurately reproduced in an image using standard RGB colour. Even after billions of dollars of R&D and decades of research, the best sensors and screens in the world cannot still accurately reproduce the simple act of looking at a flower. And yet here you are claiming that these models that've been fed nothing but digitised facsimiles that we know can't even accurately represent common situations are equivalent to the experiences of living beings? Here's a common experience most people will have had: Think about what it feels like to slip and fall on a wet road and skin your palms on some gritty tarmac. Think about how many senses that involves, and how it's a basic experience most people have had. And now consider how we aren't even remotely close to the process of beginning to digitise such a basic experience.

MichaelZuo 3y ago
> Because they're a real physical object whose colour properties cannot be accurately reproduced in an image using standard RGB colour. 'Real physical objects' don't have 'colour properties', as grouping together certain wavelength ranges of EM radiation and then assigning them a 'colour' label is a human invention. For example, even if every human disappeared from Earth tomorrow, objects will still emit EM radiation, but won't emit human invented labels.
corethree 3y ago
Sure but the minute you look at copywrited work you made a copy of it in your brain and have broken the law.
- hunter2_ 3y ago
  Isn't the more severe offense, and the one relevant here, more about distributing a recording than making a recording? Nobody will care if your brain has a copyrighted melody saved in it, but they'll care if you start putting it (or something substantially equivalent) all over the place where others can obtain it.