3 ms·

I think at this point we have to ask ourselves if we want these models or not, and who will have them. If you require licensing copyrighted data then it will be

I think at this point we have to ask ourselves if we want these models or not, and who will have them. If you require licensing copyrighted data then it will be so unprofitable to train them that no company will be able to at this point. In the future then only OpenAI or the other giants will be able to afford it (even more, since you need the expensive GPU clusters as well). It's also not technically possible at this point to attribute generated content back to the source training data, so either works will have to be equally compensated (including my meme posted on Reddit) or each piece will need to be individually negotiated with the rights holder. I don't see how these models can exist in these conditions

dsign 3y ago
> I think at this point we have to ask ourselves if we want these models or not, and who will have them. I think this is the real question. Our culture and ways of life evolved through millennia, and the majority of its bits and pieces were not thought out for dealing with generative AIs. But a bit of thinking tells us that some generative AIs are detrimental to the most cherished aspect of human culture, like music, prose or graphical arts. Perhaps this time we should make an exception and "halt progress" so that we can save our musicians, graphical artists, and novelists. After all, they are our "culture makers", and without them, we are a vessel without a pilot. In the same breath, I'm going to say that other applications of generative AIs may not deserve the same treatment. For example, if an AI puts out of a work architects, software engineers, medical doctors and so on, and in exchange we get cheaper housing, cheaper software, and eternal youth, then I may wholeheartedly support the AI.
- sterlind 3y ago
  You didn't touch on the "who will have them" part. Enforcing copyright on training data won't keep image, music and story generators from being built. It will only stop the open-source ones. OpenAI and Google can afford to license the datasets. It'll just add to their moat! I can respect wanting to ban image generators in their entirety. I can't respect allowing image generators to be monopolized by the three megacorps who signed a billion-dollar deal with Getty Images.

dsign 3y ago

> I think at this point we have to ask ourselves if we want these models or not, and who will have them. I think this is the real question. Our culture and ways of life evolved through millennia, and the majority of its bits and pieces were not thought out for dealing with generative AIs. But a bit of thinking tells us that some generative AIs are detrimental to the most cherished aspect of human culture, like music, prose or graphical arts. Perhaps this time we should make an exception and "halt progress" so that we can save our musicians, graphical artists, and novelists. After all, they are our "culture makers", and without them, we are a vessel without a pilot. In the same breath, I'm going to say that other applications of generative AIs may not deserve the same treatment. For example, if an AI puts out of a work architects, software engineers, medical doctors and so on, and in exchange we get cheaper housing, cheaper software, and eternal youth, then I may wholeheartedly support the AI.

sterlind 3y ago
You didn't touch on the "who will have them" part. Enforcing copyright on training data won't keep image, music and story generators from being built. It will only stop the open-source ones. OpenAI and Google can afford to license the datasets. It'll just add to their moat! I can respect wanting to ban image generators in their entirety. I can't respect allowing image generators to be monopolized by the three megacorps who signed a billion-dollar deal with Getty Images.