5 ms·

It has to be very hard to overcome the bad vibes of being in a situation like this. The technology seems indecipherable to a non-techie. The law seems indecip

It has to be very hard to overcome the bad vibes of being in a situation like this. The technology seems indecipherable to a non-techie. The law seems indecipherable to a layman. The ethics seem indecipherable to everyone. With so much confusion, to feel that one has been treated justly it might not be enough to participate in a class-action lawsuit resolving what happened. It would help with public trust if there were available for example protocols or sites for connecting people who want to sue companies. - Just something that shows that society does support values of equality and justice.

edent 3y ago
I think the ethics are pretty clear. 1. Don't do things to people that they don't want to be done to them. 2. Do as you would be done by. It really is that simple.
- nojvek 3y ago
  People and them are quite varied though. One one hand I want better AI that can generate whatever image that comes to my mind. On the other hand I don’t want it to blatantly copy someone else’s style that they spent years making. US is pretty fucked since it has very little safety net compared to other modern countries if AI really started replacing humans. This is people’s livelihoods we are talking about. Will AI cause people to commit suicide? Yeah if it starts replacing them and they lose meaning in life.
  - edent 3y ago
    > People and them are quite varied though. So ask permission. Do you want to have our model ingest your work? Y/N
    - CaptainFever 3y ago
      [No answer]. Then what? Permission isn't the end-all-be-all. I don't ask for your permission to exist or walk down the street, for example. You could try to make the case that people need to ask for permission first, on a balanced-harms argument, but it's not self-evident to be true. "It's also not inherently unethical to do things that someone doesn't want, because not all wants are valid or reasonable. A child may not want to have the candy put away, but it is still done anyway." - ronsor
      - edent 3y ago
        Do you understand the concept of consent? Absence of "no" is not the same as "yes".
        CaptainFever 3y ago
        Sure. The requirement of consent is still not necessarily always ethical.
        edent 3y ago
        Yes. Yes it is. There is a very narrow window where you can argue about the proportionality of state's monopoly on violence to coerce someone. There you can argue about the competing ethical needs to keep society safe vs a criminal's lack of consent to be imprisoned. But that's not what we're discussing. Should a large company be able to ignore consent in order to create a product for profit? No.
        CaptainFever 3y ago
        Since you brought up coercion as a reason for consent, do note that when your works are used, no action is being done upon you. So what coercion is being done here? On the other hand, copyright proponents are the ones trying to coerce other people, restricting them from using what they already have access to via the use of copyright laws, backed by state violence. We do not consent to copyright laws. Of course, the copyright of corporations producing AI is protected by state violence as well. But I do not regard that as legitimate either, so people should try and make that more open (pirating the models) instead of trying to close down their own works.
        edent 3y ago
        Ah yes. Property is theft. So I'm allowed to take your car because you're trying to restrict me from using something I have easy access to once I break your window. No harm has come to you, has it? Unfortunately, we live in a world governed by laws and society. For 300 years copyright has been the law of the land (in varying degrees). It was bought about, in part, because people feel that someone mis-using their property is undesirable. You cannot tell people that their feels are invalid. Lots of these artists feel aggrieved that their art is being misused. They think the law has been broken and a social contract has been violated. What argument do you have against that other than "you're wrong to feel that way"?
    - notfed 3y ago
      The problem is this doesn't scale. How do you ask permission? <img permission="yes"> ? How do you know the original author of the image is the one posting this?
- ronsor 3y ago
  I personally don't care if my work is used to train a large AI model. It's also not inherently unethical to do things that someone doesn't want, because not all wants are valid or reasonable. A child may not want to have the candy put away, but it is still done anyway.
  - edent 3y ago
    That's fine. You can donate your work. But you cannot forcibly donate the work of others.
- ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
  (1) means that taxes, the legal and justice systems, much of the public education system, criticism, begging on the street, and protest are all unethical, among I'm sure many others. Not to suggest you believe they are- I'm sure that you can present very strong arguments for some or all of these- but that makes it much less simple and leaves room for debate about whether this situation is also an exception.
  - edent 3y ago
    People are free to leave a place which taxes them, or to homeschool their children, etc. This situation is not an exception. There is no compelling reason to force people to have their work ingested by an AI. Unless you believe that large companies have the inherent right to disregard the rights of individuals?
    - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
      Adding opt-out conceivably covers all of these examples except for criticism and the justice system. It does also rope in DALL-E and Stable Diffusion. Do I have the right to not let {MINORITY} ingest my work? The right to not allow my words to be quoted? To say you cannot rip my mp3s from CD and must buy it twice if you want to listen on your ipod? To prevent it from entering public domain or to ban fair use transformations like parody? Was it unethical of Emily Dickinson's family to publish her work posthumously and without consent, and, separately, is it unethical for me to read it today? Was it wrong to translate The Art of War, given that Sun Tzu wanted it to give the Chinese an advantage over their enemies? I (obviously) don't believe that large companies can disregard human rights. I do believe that ASI is a necessary precondition to a post-scarcity utopia and that every day it is delayed is a day that a billion people will suffer unnecessarily, and I admit that probably biases me against people in the first world who are doing their damnedest to delay it anyway because they want money. I do recognize that the possibility that OpenAI et al don't get us any closer to ASI or the possibility that ASI destroys rather than enriches humanity are valid critiques of that. Ultimately, I'm strongly confident that people don't have unlimited rights to what is done with their works, weakly confident that one such limit is on the right to prevent their use as training data, and very strongly confident that this is a complicated ethical question.

edent 3y ago

I think the ethics are pretty clear. 1. Don't do things to people that they don't want to be done to them. 2. Do as you would be done by. It really is that simple.

nojvek 3y ago
People and them are quite varied though. One one hand I want better AI that can generate whatever image that comes to my mind. On the other hand I don’t want it to blatantly copy someone else’s style that they spent years making. US is pretty fucked since it has very little safety net compared to other modern countries if AI really started replacing humans. This is people’s livelihoods we are talking about. Will AI cause people to commit suicide? Yeah if it starts replacing them and they lose meaning in life.
- edent 3y ago
  > People and them are quite varied though. So ask permission. Do you want to have our model ingest your work? Y/N
  - CaptainFever 3y ago
    [No answer]. Then what? Permission isn't the end-all-be-all. I don't ask for your permission to exist or walk down the street, for example. You could try to make the case that people need to ask for permission first, on a balanced-harms argument, but it's not self-evident to be true. "It's also not inherently unethical to do things that someone doesn't want, because not all wants are valid or reasonable. A child may not want to have the candy put away, but it is still done anyway." - ronsor
    - edent 3y ago
      Do you understand the concept of consent? Absence of "no" is not the same as "yes".
      - CaptainFever 3y ago
        Sure. The requirement of consent is still not necessarily always ethical.
        edent 3y ago
        Yes. Yes it is. There is a very narrow window where you can argue about the proportionality of state's monopoly on violence to coerce someone. There you can argue about the competing ethical needs to keep society safe vs a criminal's lack of consent to be imprisoned. But that's not what we're discussing. Should a large company be able to ignore consent in order to create a product for profit? No.
        CaptainFever 3y ago
        Since you brought up coercion as a reason for consent, do note that when your works are used, no action is being done upon you. So what coercion is being done here? On the other hand, copyright proponents are the ones trying to coerce other people, restricting them from using what they already have access to via the use of copyright laws, backed by state violence. We do not consent to copyright laws. Of course, the copyright of corporations producing AI is protected by state violence as well. But I do not regard that as legitimate either, so people should try and make that more open (pirating the models) instead of trying to close down their own works.
        edent 3y ago
        Ah yes. Property is theft. So I'm allowed to take your car because you're trying to restrict me from using something I have easy access to once I break your window. No harm has come to you, has it? Unfortunately, we live in a world governed by laws and society. For 300 years copyright has been the law of the land (in varying degrees). It was bought about, in part, because people feel that someone mis-using their property is undesirable. You cannot tell people that their feels are invalid. Lots of these artists feel aggrieved that their art is being misused. They think the law has been broken and a social contract has been violated. What argument do you have against that other than "you're wrong to feel that way"?
  - notfed 3y ago
    The problem is this doesn't scale. How do you ask permission? <img permission="yes"> ? How do you know the original author of the image is the one posting this?
ronsor 3y ago
I personally don't care if my work is used to train a large AI model. It's also not inherently unethical to do things that someone doesn't want, because not all wants are valid or reasonable. A child may not want to have the candy put away, but it is still done anyway.
- edent 3y ago
  That's fine. You can donate your work. But you cannot forcibly donate the work of others.
ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
(1) means that taxes, the legal and justice systems, much of the public education system, criticism, begging on the street, and protest are all unethical, among I'm sure many others. Not to suggest you believe they are- I'm sure that you can present very strong arguments for some or all of these- but that makes it much less simple and leaves room for debate about whether this situation is also an exception.
- edent 3y ago
  People are free to leave a place which taxes them, or to homeschool their children, etc. This situation is not an exception. There is no compelling reason to force people to have their work ingested by an AI. Unless you believe that large companies have the inherent right to disregard the rights of individuals?
  - ToValueFunfetti 3y ago
    Adding opt-out conceivably covers all of these examples except for criticism and the justice system. It does also rope in DALL-E and Stable Diffusion. Do I have the right to not let {MINORITY} ingest my work? The right to not allow my words to be quoted? To say you cannot rip my mp3s from CD and must buy it twice if you want to listen on your ipod? To prevent it from entering public domain or to ban fair use transformations like parody? Was it unethical of Emily Dickinson's family to publish her work posthumously and without consent, and, separately, is it unethical for me to read it today? Was it wrong to translate The Art of War, given that Sun Tzu wanted it to give the Chinese an advantage over their enemies? I (obviously) don't believe that large companies can disregard human rights. I do believe that ASI is a necessary precondition to a post-scarcity utopia and that every day it is delayed is a day that a billion people will suffer unnecessarily, and I admit that probably biases me against people in the first world who are doing their damnedest to delay it anyway because they want money. I do recognize that the possibility that OpenAI et al don't get us any closer to ASI or the possibility that ASI destroys rather than enriches humanity are valid critiques of that. Ultimately, I'm strongly confident that people don't have unlimited rights to what is done with their works, weakly confident that one such limit is on the right to prevent their use as training data, and very strongly confident that this is a complicated ethical question.