4 ms·

I’ve seen a lot of attempts but nothing that worked really well. Using an agent as a glorified search engine can work, but trying to replace actual humans to ha

by JCM9 3y ago

I’ve seen a lot of attempts but nothing that worked really well. Using an agent as a glorified search engine can work, but trying to replace actual humans to handle anything but the most standard use cases is still incredibly hard. There’s a lot of overhyped rhetoric at the moment around this tech, and looks like we’re heading into another period of post-hype disillusionment. Legal angles here also also super interesting. There’s a growing body of scenarios where companies are held accountable for the goofs of their AI “assistants.” Thus we’re likely heading for some comical train wrecks as companies that don’t properly vet this stuff set themselves up for some expensive disasters (eg think the AI assistant doing things that will get the company into trouble). I’m bullish on the tech, but bearish on the ability of folks to deploy it at scale without making a big expensive mess.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
spxneo 3y ago
Extrapolating on your legal comment, copyright is the current issue. Right now the USCO says if you use a large model that used copyrighted material to train it, you cannot copyright the generated art. This applies to not just art but might be for code as well. So I wonder what the legal liabilities are say for a publicly traded company to use Midjourney to generate content that is also copyrighted. ex) it is possible to generate movie characters that we instantly recognize if you use non-english words which pretty much nail in the coffin for safe harbour status granted under DMCA
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Right now the USCO says if you use a large model that used copyrighted material to train it, you cannot copyright the generated art. Unless the Copyright Office has come out with a newer rule, it says if you use a model that does the usual creative parts of making the output you can’t copyright the output, because it is not a work of human authorship. (And that if a work is mixed AI/human, the AI use must be disclosed in copyright registration to avoid copyright protection being applied to elements that are not human work.) “Large model” and “copyrighted material used to train it” are not the issues.
- stillTwerkin 3y ago
  Eh, who cares? I get money from my job and can save money entertaining myself with generative art. Even if I can’t copyright it, fine, because it’s an outdated political and economic cudgel used to expropriate and exploit more often than not The past is so often proven wrong and was so much less civil, we can never actually ask James Madison if we did right by his notion the future owes the past. We can only decide for ourselves we align with the long dead’s philosophy. Where is the value in so carefully conserving in such detail the past? I’m not saying we end history as a field of study but as an obligation of daily life. The most important lesson of history, imo, is prevent nation states or whatever might take their place from having the ability to wage wars. Most of their philosophy is indecipherable given our life experience is vastly different than theirs. Would they see this world and come to the same conclusion they did?
- jpollock 3y ago
  The GP might not be exclusively talking about copyright. They might also be talking about how Air Canada lost a lawsuit about whether or not they needed to honor their chatbot's hallucinations. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/air-canada-chatbot-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/air-canada-cha...
echelon 3y ago
AI agents suck. It's too early. The first dominoes to fall will be art, music, and film. These don't require perfection and can be iterated on by the creator. The tools become a method in the process. Everyone in the agent space is bumping around until the next big innovation that actually unlocks the technique sparks a race to productize. Maybe some will get lucky and have a fast pivot. Or maybe they'll run out of funds before the big breakthrough.
- spxneo 3y ago
  right now the expected future cashflow from whoever "wins" is infinite justifying astronomical amount of capital expenditure. ex) Microsoft's $100 billion supercomputer Sometimes I get they are already sitting on some ground breaking stuff and slowly releasing it to test our responses and get feedbacks. I'm certain they will be reading this thread but if one theme repeats itself is the lack of trust in the output of the agents and the companies creating it.
  - echelon 3y ago
    > right now the expected future cashflow from whoever "wins" is infinite justifying astronomical amount of capital expenditure. ex) Microsoft's $100 billion supercomputer Absolutely. These agent startups don't have PMF and haven't solved anything yet. They're playing in the kiddie pool while Microsoft is placing chess pieces with a GDP-level moat (which is frankly terrifying).
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  > AI agents suck. The idea does not suck. On paper it's great. Just tell an "agent" what you want and off it goes to get it. And it's possible. LLMs open the interface to search planning and selection algorithms that have been around for 40 years and are mature. You could have this tomorrow. The assumption is that people want it. Tech business has come a long way exploiting people's vices, specifically laziness of thought we call "convenience". But at heart, tech is still seen as a tool, to empower people, to give them agency. Agents subtract agency. > It's too early.... the big breakthrough. Hoping for progress against human psychology seems a fool's errand.

by JCM9 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

spxneo 3y ago

Extrapolating on your legal comment, copyright is the current issue. Right now the USCO says if you use a large model that used copyrighted material to train it, you cannot copyright the generated art. This applies to not just art but might be for code as well. So I wonder what the legal liabilities are say for a publicly traded company to use Midjourney to generate content that is also copyrighted. ex) it is possible to generate movie characters that we instantly recognize if you use non-english words which pretty much nail in the coffin for safe harbour status granted under DMCA

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Right now the USCO says if you use a large model that used copyrighted material to train it, you cannot copyright the generated art. Unless the Copyright Office has come out with a newer rule, it says if you use a model that does the usual creative parts of making the output you can’t copyright the output, because it is not a work of human authorship. (And that if a work is mixed AI/human, the AI use must be disclosed in copyright registration to avoid copyright protection being applied to elements that are not human work.) “Large model” and “copyrighted material used to train it” are not the issues.
stillTwerkin 3y ago
Eh, who cares? I get money from my job and can save money entertaining myself with generative art. Even if I can’t copyright it, fine, because it’s an outdated political and economic cudgel used to expropriate and exploit more often than not The past is so often proven wrong and was so much less civil, we can never actually ask James Madison if we did right by his notion the future owes the past. We can only decide for ourselves we align with the long dead’s philosophy. Where is the value in so carefully conserving in such detail the past? I’m not saying we end history as a field of study but as an obligation of daily life. The most important lesson of history, imo, is prevent nation states or whatever might take their place from having the ability to wage wars. Most of their philosophy is indecipherable given our life experience is vastly different than theirs. Would they see this world and come to the same conclusion they did?
jpollock 3y ago
The GP might not be exclusively talking about copyright. They might also be talking about how Air Canada lost a lawsuit about whether or not they needed to honor their chatbot's hallucinations. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/air-canada-chatbot-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/air-canada-cha...

echelon 3y ago

AI agents suck. It's too early. The first dominoes to fall will be art, music, and film. These don't require perfection and can be iterated on by the creator. The tools become a method in the process. Everyone in the agent space is bumping around until the next big innovation that actually unlocks the technique sparks a race to productize. Maybe some will get lucky and have a fast pivot. Or maybe they'll run out of funds before the big breakthrough.

spxneo 3y ago
right now the expected future cashflow from whoever "wins" is infinite justifying astronomical amount of capital expenditure. ex) Microsoft's $100 billion supercomputer Sometimes I get they are already sitting on some ground breaking stuff and slowly releasing it to test our responses and get feedbacks. I'm certain they will be reading this thread but if one theme repeats itself is the lack of trust in the output of the agents and the companies creating it.
- echelon 3y ago
  > right now the expected future cashflow from whoever "wins" is infinite justifying astronomical amount of capital expenditure. ex) Microsoft's $100 billion supercomputer Absolutely. These agent startups don't have PMF and haven't solved anything yet. They're playing in the kiddie pool while Microsoft is placing chess pieces with a GDP-level moat (which is frankly terrifying).
nonrandomstring 3y ago
> AI agents suck. The idea does not suck. On paper it's great. Just tell an "agent" what you want and off it goes to get it. And it's possible. LLMs open the interface to search planning and selection algorithms that have been around for 40 years and are mature. You could have this tomorrow. The assumption is that people want it. Tech business has come a long way exploiting people's vices, specifically laziness of thought we call "convenience". But at heart, tech is still seen as a tool, to empower people, to give them agency. Agents subtract agency. > It's too early.... the big breakthrough. Hoping for progress against human psychology seems a fool's errand.