4 ms·

Rounding up a transaction and taking the leftovers wouldn’t be a crime worthy of the FBI for one transaction but it would be for a million or a billion. Scale m

Rounding up a transaction and taking the leftovers wouldn’t be a crime worthy of the FBI for one transaction but it would be for a million or a billion. Scale matters and impact matters. If you’re making an ethical argument “it’s okay because it’s already happening to a lesser degree somewhere else” isn’t the flex you think it is. If you’re talking ethics, talk about impact. Who does it help the most who does it hurt the most? Is your argument favoring equality of access or outcome? Who is the most vulnerable in the situation and how will it impact them? > I cover generative AI Wait, are you teaching the class or taking it?

stale2002 3y ago
> “it’s okay because it’s already happening to a lesser degree somewhere else” isn’t the flex you think it is. It actually is. It shows that we as a society are completely OK with this, and nobody is complaining about a very standard and common thing that all artists do. It shows that the outrage is fake, and people don't actually care about the issue.
- ImPleadThe5th 3y ago
  I don't really care when creative people steal. I care when faceless soulless companies monetize stolen content from Artists.
  - Spivak 3y ago
    It's still copyright violation. Sue them. Being generated by AI doesn't make the final output not copywritten. The interesting question is whether the models themselves are copyright violations not the output.
- sensanaty 3y ago
  Do you really see no difference between someone drawing a piece of fan art and trillion dollar corporations stealing other people's works and reselling it for their own profit with no regards to anyone or anything else? And yes, obviously society cares about many things depending on the scales in question. It's okay if a dude goes onto a lake on his small rowboat and catches a few fish for dinner, it's a completely different story if you're talking about a massive barge indiscriminately catching literally thousands of fish with huge nets. The latter has to adhere to much stricter rules than the prior, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks these 2 situations should be treated equally (unless you're a commercial fisherman with a barge, I suppose, the quote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." comes to mind here)
  - gaganyaan 3y ago
    It's not stealing and they're not reselling anything. That's why it's called Generative AI
    - sensanaty 3y ago
      By that logic I can torrent movies and distribute them all I'd like as long as I call it "Generative Watching" or something like that. And OpenAI quite literally sells access to their models, and if those models are pushing out verbatim copyrighted works as has been alleged by the NYT, then they are by definition reselling copyrighted works without permission.
      - madamelic 3y ago
        > And OpenAI quite literally sells access to their models, and if those models are pushing out verbatim copyrighted works as has been alleged by the NYT, then they are by definition reselling copyrighted works without permission. This style of argument has been previously made regarding things like torrenting during the heyday of piracy ("why would you need <x> except for illegal purposes!") In my opinion, it's the exact same argument saying that selling a tool means taking responsibility for how that tool is used by its new owner. You can use a shovel to both create something new (plant a tree) or destroy something (rip up your neighbor's garden). The problem isn't the tool, the problem is how the end user uses it. These models aren't living thinking entities that enduce or on their own infringe copyright / do other illegal activities. They aren't encouraging people to misuse them and it is solely on the user's shoulders for their choice to use them in a way that would cause infringement if the result is used commercially.
        sensanaty 3y ago
        > They aren't encouraging people to misuse them and it is solely on the user's shoulders for their choice to use them in a way that would cause infringement if the result is used commercially. I agree in principle, but that they can in the first place, especially when it accidentally happens, and at such massive scales more importantly, is the issue methinks. And no one's talking about abolishing the AIs here, we're just talking about wanting M$/OAI to do their due diligence and get access to their training materials fairly. NYT wouldn't have sued if M$/OAI had approached them and struck a deal of some sort with them, but that's not what they did. They took in whatever data they could, from wherever they could baring no mind at all to where the data came from and what was being done with it. There's a reason Getty images managed to strike a deal with Dall-E and why many of the image generation models now solely rely on data that is verifiably free of copyright (or where deals have been made in the case of Getty images). It's easier to see in pictures when a blatant copy is made (like watermarks) so it's obvious why Dall-E was the first to encounter this hurdle, but this was inevitable even for plain text that ChatGPT returns.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  It shows that as a society we might be ok with humans doing it. Whether or not we are with machines doing it is a different question.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    Fortunately, a machine isn't an autonomous mind that does anything on its own. Instead, it is a person who uses the machine, just like fan artists can use a computer to make fan art.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      True, but still different in the same way as using machines for certain purposes is not the same as a human doing the same without a machine. Just because you can walk from A to B does not mean driving from A to B requires no driving license, for example (and the car needs to fullfil a lot regulations).
    - symlinkk 3y ago
      Is that what you’d tell the police if you were caught selling pirated copies of Blu Rays?
      - stale2002 3y ago
        That supports my point, not yours. A machine being involved in the process doesn't change any of the copyright implications. Either it's infringement or it isn't, regardless if the human did it on their own, or if the human did it with a computer.
- phatfish 3y ago
  Society may be "completely OK" with human artists taking inspiration from each other. It's a big old reach to assume we are "completely OK" with Microsoft and OpenAI doing the same thing with computer software as subscription service they sell.
- danielmarkbruce 3y ago
  Humans decided scale matters. Our legal systems explicitly say so. Sentencing guidelines for fraud are quite explicit. Society makes those laws. Society is effectively ok with you ripping me off for $1. They are not when it's $100k.
tsumnia 3y ago
> are you teaching the class or taking it? I teach it, my background is located in my profile and my research focuses on CS education. Scale and impact do matter, I wholeheartedly agree. However, I stand by my point that genAI is mirroring how humans learn - repetition of previously observed actions. As part of my dissertation, I argued that humans operate using 'templates', or previously established frameworks / systems. Even in higher cognitive tasks like problem solving, we rely on workflows that we were trained on previously. Soloway referred to problem solving as a mental set of "basic recurring plans" [1] and if you look at the old 1980s Usborne children's books, they required kids to retype code [2]. For creative tasks, depending on the actor's background, Method and Meisner both tell people to draw from previous experiences and observations to develop a character. This behavior is similar in many areas like music, dance, martial arts, cooking, language acquisition, etc. I am not making an ethical argument that GenAI violating copyright is okay because that's what humans do. I'm arguing that GenAI mirrors how humans learn. We observe a behavior and attempt to recreate that behavior. The difference is that humans can extract a fraction of the behavior and utilize it as part of something larger while GenAI cannot to the degree humans do. I'm sure GenAI would struggle to recreate "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" because of the two polar different visual elements of the film (cartoon and real life). In regards to your "If you’re talking ethics, talk about impact" section, its a bit of a loaded question. One side of the conversation could state that GenAI is helping many people that do not have confidence in their creative ability to produce their ideas, while the other could state its making it harder for artists. Yes, it absolutely is hurting artists and I fully support the recent writer's strike over AI concerns. But I do not believe that diminishes how the mathematical models used in GenAI mirror our own skill acquistion. [1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5010283 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5010283 [2] https://usborne.com/us/books/computer-and-coding-books https://usborne.com/us/books/computer-and-coding-books
- schneems 3y ago
  I took an AI in ethics course from a state backed school (Georgia Tech) and the answer to questions that weren’t “that’s illegal based on protected status” were “well, it depends.” Which, sure, that’s true, but maybe not helpful. In my view it encouraged nihilism and apathy instead of developing ethical frameworks. From that lens, I feel teaching a course might be more limiting in the range of heuristics you’re willing to accept or endorse. Though happy to accept your personal experience. A paper that comes to mind often from HCI is “do artifacts have politics” which looks at the impacts of technologies divorced from creator intent. I feel that’s similar here. You’re not wrong that about the mechanism that it’s created. But I would argue that’s the least important part, ethically anyway. Saying “strip mining with heavy industrial machines mimics laborers using shovels” is true to a degree, but but perhaps not that important piece of information. I’m not saying you’re making that argument. I guess im just not totally sure the outcome you were looking for in sharing your original comment. I hear your comparison and agree with it and that it is interesting to view in that lense. I wasn’t sure if there was a deeper intent in sharing it.

stale2002 3y ago

> “it’s okay because it’s already happening to a lesser degree somewhere else” isn’t the flex you think it is. It actually is. It shows that we as a society are completely OK with this, and nobody is complaining about a very standard and common thing that all artists do. It shows that the outrage is fake, and people don't actually care about the issue.

ImPleadThe5th 3y ago
I don't really care when creative people steal. I care when faceless soulless companies monetize stolen content from Artists.
- Spivak 3y ago
  It's still copyright violation. Sue them. Being generated by AI doesn't make the final output not copywritten. The interesting question is whether the models themselves are copyright violations not the output.
sensanaty 3y ago
Do you really see no difference between someone drawing a piece of fan art and trillion dollar corporations stealing other people's works and reselling it for their own profit with no regards to anyone or anything else? And yes, obviously society cares about many things depending on the scales in question. It's okay if a dude goes onto a lake on his small rowboat and catches a few fish for dinner, it's a completely different story if you're talking about a massive barge indiscriminately catching literally thousands of fish with huge nets. The latter has to adhere to much stricter rules than the prior, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks these 2 situations should be treated equally (unless you're a commercial fisherman with a barge, I suppose, the quote "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." comes to mind here)
- gaganyaan 3y ago
  It's not stealing and they're not reselling anything. That's why it's called Generative AI
  - sensanaty 3y ago
    By that logic I can torrent movies and distribute them all I'd like as long as I call it "Generative Watching" or something like that. And OpenAI quite literally sells access to their models, and if those models are pushing out verbatim copyrighted works as has been alleged by the NYT, then they are by definition reselling copyrighted works without permission.
    - madamelic 3y ago
      > And OpenAI quite literally sells access to their models, and if those models are pushing out verbatim copyrighted works as has been alleged by the NYT, then they are by definition reselling copyrighted works without permission. This style of argument has been previously made regarding things like torrenting during the heyday of piracy ("why would you need <x> except for illegal purposes!") In my opinion, it's the exact same argument saying that selling a tool means taking responsibility for how that tool is used by its new owner. You can use a shovel to both create something new (plant a tree) or destroy something (rip up your neighbor's garden). The problem isn't the tool, the problem is how the end user uses it. These models aren't living thinking entities that enduce or on their own infringe copyright / do other illegal activities. They aren't encouraging people to misuse them and it is solely on the user's shoulders for their choice to use them in a way that would cause infringement if the result is used commercially.
      - sensanaty 3y ago
        > They aren't encouraging people to misuse them and it is solely on the user's shoulders for their choice to use them in a way that would cause infringement if the result is used commercially. I agree in principle, but that they can in the first place, especially when it accidentally happens, and at such massive scales more importantly, is the issue methinks. And no one's talking about abolishing the AIs here, we're just talking about wanting M$/OAI to do their due diligence and get access to their training materials fairly. NYT wouldn't have sued if M$/OAI had approached them and struck a deal of some sort with them, but that's not what they did. They took in whatever data they could, from wherever they could baring no mind at all to where the data came from and what was being done with it. There's a reason Getty images managed to strike a deal with Dall-E and why many of the image generation models now solely rely on data that is verifiably free of copyright (or where deals have been made in the case of Getty images). It's easier to see in pictures when a blatant copy is made (like watermarks) so it's obvious why Dall-E was the first to encounter this hurdle, but this was inevitable even for plain text that ChatGPT returns.
RandomLensman 3y ago
It shows that as a society we might be ok with humans doing it. Whether or not we are with machines doing it is a different question.
- stale2002 3y ago
  Fortunately, a machine isn't an autonomous mind that does anything on its own. Instead, it is a person who uses the machine, just like fan artists can use a computer to make fan art.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    True, but still different in the same way as using machines for certain purposes is not the same as a human doing the same without a machine. Just because you can walk from A to B does not mean driving from A to B requires no driving license, for example (and the car needs to fullfil a lot regulations).
  - symlinkk 3y ago
    Is that what you’d tell the police if you were caught selling pirated copies of Blu Rays?
    - stale2002 3y ago
      That supports my point, not yours. A machine being involved in the process doesn't change any of the copyright implications. Either it's infringement or it isn't, regardless if the human did it on their own, or if the human did it with a computer.
phatfish 3y ago
Society may be "completely OK" with human artists taking inspiration from each other. It's a big old reach to assume we are "completely OK" with Microsoft and OpenAI doing the same thing with computer software as subscription service they sell.
danielmarkbruce 3y ago
Humans decided scale matters. Our legal systems explicitly say so. Sentencing guidelines for fraud are quite explicit. Society makes those laws. Society is effectively ok with you ripping me off for $1. They are not when it's $100k.

tsumnia 3y ago

> are you teaching the class or taking it? I teach it, my background is located in my profile and my research focuses on CS education. Scale and impact do matter, I wholeheartedly agree. However, I stand by my point that genAI is mirroring how humans learn - repetition of previously observed actions. As part of my dissertation, I argued that humans operate using 'templates', or previously established frameworks / systems. Even in higher cognitive tasks like problem solving, we rely on workflows that we were trained on previously. Soloway referred to problem solving as a mental set of "basic recurring plans" [1] and if you look at the old 1980s Usborne children's books, they required kids to retype code [2]. For creative tasks, depending on the actor's background, Method and Meisner both tell people to draw from previous experiences and observations to develop a character. This behavior is similar in many areas like music, dance, martial arts, cooking, language acquisition, etc. I am not making an ethical argument that GenAI violating copyright is okay because that's what humans do. I'm arguing that GenAI mirrors how humans learn. We observe a behavior and attempt to recreate that behavior. The difference is that humans can extract a fraction of the behavior and utilize it as part of something larger while GenAI cannot to the degree humans do. I'm sure GenAI would struggle to recreate "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" because of the two polar different visual elements of the film (cartoon and real life). In regards to your "If you’re talking ethics, talk about impact" section, its a bit of a loaded question. One side of the conversation could state that GenAI is helping many people that do not have confidence in their creative ability to produce their ideas, while the other could state its making it harder for artists. Yes, it absolutely is hurting artists and I fully support the recent writer's strike over AI concerns. But I do not believe that diminishes how the mathematical models used in GenAI mirror our own skill acquistion. [1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5010283 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5010283 [2] https://usborne.com/us/books/computer-and-coding-books https://usborne.com/us/books/computer-and-coding-books

schneems 3y ago
I took an AI in ethics course from a state backed school (Georgia Tech) and the answer to questions that weren’t “that’s illegal based on protected status” were “well, it depends.” Which, sure, that’s true, but maybe not helpful. In my view it encouraged nihilism and apathy instead of developing ethical frameworks. From that lens, I feel teaching a course might be more limiting in the range of heuristics you’re willing to accept or endorse. Though happy to accept your personal experience. A paper that comes to mind often from HCI is “do artifacts have politics” which looks at the impacts of technologies divorced from creator intent. I feel that’s similar here. You’re not wrong that about the mechanism that it’s created. But I would argue that’s the least important part, ethically anyway. Saying “strip mining with heavy industrial machines mimics laborers using shovels” is true to a degree, but but perhaps not that important piece of information. I’m not saying you’re making that argument. I guess im just not totally sure the outcome you were looking for in sharing your original comment. I hear your comparison and agree with it and that it is interesting to view in that lense. I wasn’t sure if there was a deeper intent in sharing it.