3 ms·

Agreed, it feels like people's copyright wishes are being flagrantly ignored, with a sense of "well, it's too late now, just live with it". And I do not buy th

by tjr 3y ago

Agreed, it feels like people's copyright wishes are being flagrantly ignored, with a sense of "well, it's too late now, just live with it". And I do not buy the "just like a person learning" argument. At least, not fully. I could see that, if you have a fully-functioning AI system, then handing it a new article to ingest could be "just like a person learning". But many people graduate high school having read just a few dozen books (or less), having been around maybe a few dozen people (or less), and watched a few dozen movies (or less). A person does not need to ingest a nontrivial percentage of the entire wealth of human knowledge just to be able to be intelligent enough to read an article in the first place. There may be people who do not care about this distinction. That's fine. But I am quite convinced that the distinction exists. And thus I do not believe that training an AI system is just like teaching a person -- and making copyright decisions on the basis that the two things are identical does not make sense.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
> And thus I do not believe that training an AI system is just like teaching a person 100%. I love the way you put this and just wanted to expand on it a little bit, to remind everyone that there have been numerous, flagrant examples of various creators of various media who have their names/handles put into these models, who have work that is ludicrously similar to theirs in style produced from the model, and despite the fact that it's technically original, it is not original in any way meaningful to the topic, or defensible by anyone debating in good faith. That you need to put things like "unreal engine" "featured on artstation" and the like proves this. You're telling the machine to aim for works you know are of a higher quality in the dataset to get a better result. Now if you're just fine with that and content to fuck over artists like that for no other reason than you can, I can't stop you. But please spare me the righteous indignation of objecting to the characterization of such behavior. It's fucking obvious, do not insult the intelligence of your opponents by insisting otherwise.
- notahacker 3y ago
  And tbh even if people are absolutely fine with that, and think that the analogies and legal arguments that they make are absolutely sound and maybe think copyright's a terrible idea anyway, I still can't see why they'd expect Big AI to suddenly drop the "don't care what you think about how we use your stuff, if it's not explicitly illegal we're going to use it" stance when it comes to stuff that's supposed to be 'private' rather than stuff that supposed to be 'property'. Sure maybe you care more about whether OpenAI has stuff derived from the contents of your Dropbox on their servers which is technically neither "training a model" nor the actual "copy" they were required to delete after 30 days than you ever did about copyrighted stuff. But why would OpenAI?

by tjr 3y ago

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

> And thus I do not believe that training an AI system is just like teaching a person 100%. I love the way you put this and just wanted to expand on it a little bit, to remind everyone that there have been numerous, flagrant examples of various creators of various media who have their names/handles put into these models, who have work that is ludicrously similar to theirs in style produced from the model, and despite the fact that it's technically original, it is not original in any way meaningful to the topic, or defensible by anyone debating in good faith. That you need to put things like "unreal engine" "featured on artstation" and the like proves this. You're telling the machine to aim for works you know are of a higher quality in the dataset to get a better result. Now if you're just fine with that and content to fuck over artists like that for no other reason than you can, I can't stop you. But please spare me the righteous indignation of objecting to the characterization of such behavior. It's fucking obvious, do not insult the intelligence of your opponents by insisting otherwise.

notahacker 3y ago
And tbh even if people are absolutely fine with that, and think that the analogies and legal arguments that they make are absolutely sound and maybe think copyright's a terrible idea anyway, I still can't see why they'd expect Big AI to suddenly drop the "don't care what you think about how we use your stuff, if it's not explicitly illegal we're going to use it" stance when it comes to stuff that's supposed to be 'private' rather than stuff that supposed to be 'property'. Sure maybe you care more about whether OpenAI has stuff derived from the contents of your Dropbox on their servers which is technically neither "training a model" nor the actual "copy" they were required to delete after 30 days than you ever did about copyrighted stuff. But why would OpenAI?