3 ms·

That's a significant over simplification of how it works though to the point of almost not being a useful analogy. If your analogy was you were a human who mem

by dmix 2y ago

That's a significant over simplification of how it works though to the point of almost not being a useful analogy. If your analogy was you were a human who memorized every variation of a problem (and every other known problem) and there was a tiny perctange of a chance where you reproduced that exact varation of one you memorized, but then added an after the fact filter so you don't directly reproduce it... It's more like musicians who basically copy a bunch of music patterns or chord progressions before then notice their final output sounds too similar to another song (which happens often IRL) then changes it to be more original before releasing it to the public.

ADeerAppeared 2y ago
> If you analogy was you were a human who memorized every variation of a problem (and every other known problem) This is mere assumption. AI is supposed to work like that, but that's a goal, and not the result of current implementations. Research shows that they do memorize solutions as well, and quite regularly so. (This is an unavoidable flaw in current LLMs; They must be capable of memorizing input verbatim in order to learn specific facts.) > and there was a tiny perctange of a chance where you reproduced that exact varation of one you memorized This is copyright infringement. Actionable copyright infringement. The big music publishers go after this kind of accidental partial reproduction. > but then added an after the fact filter so you don't directly reproduce it... "Legally distinct" is a gimmick that only works where the copyright is on specific identifiable parts of a work. Changing a variable name does not make a code snippet "legally distinct", it's still copyright infringement.
- dmix 2y ago
  Meh I still see that as a big oversimplification. Context matters. Even if the copyright courts often ignore that for wealthy entities. Someone reproducing a song using AI and publishing it as their own copyright infringement, a person specifically querying an AI engine, that sucked up billions of lines of information and generates what you ask it do with a sma probability it will reproduce a small subset of a larger commercial project and sends it to someone in a chatbox is not exactly the same IMO. This is Github Copilot after all. I use it daily and it autocompletes lines of code or generates functions you can find on stackoverflow. It's not letting giving you the source code to Twitter in full and letting you put it on the internet as a business under another name.
belorn 2y ago
We are currently seeing the music industry reacting to AI learning a bunch of music patterns and chord progressions and outputting works that sounds very similar to existing music and artists. They are not liking it. To just see how much they disliked it, youtube copyright strikes is basically a trained AI to detect music patterns to identify sound with slight variations or copyrighted songs and take videos down. Generating slight variations was one of the early method that videos used to bypass the take down system.

by dmix 2y ago

ADeerAppeared 2y ago

> If you analogy was you were a human who memorized every variation of a problem (and every other known problem) This is mere assumption. AI is supposed to work like that, but that's a goal, and not the result of current implementations. Research shows that they do memorize solutions as well, and quite regularly so. (This is an unavoidable flaw in current LLMs; They must be capable of memorizing input verbatim in order to learn specific facts.) > and there was a tiny perctange of a chance where you reproduced that exact varation of one you memorized This is copyright infringement. Actionable copyright infringement. The big music publishers go after this kind of accidental partial reproduction. > but then added an after the fact filter so you don't directly reproduce it... "Legally distinct" is a gimmick that only works where the copyright is on specific identifiable parts of a work. Changing a variable name does not make a code snippet "legally distinct", it's still copyright infringement.

dmix 2y ago
Meh I still see that as a big oversimplification. Context matters. Even if the copyright courts often ignore that for wealthy entities. Someone reproducing a song using AI and publishing it as their own copyright infringement, a person specifically querying an AI engine, that sucked up billions of lines of information and generates what you ask it do with a sma probability it will reproduce a small subset of a larger commercial project and sends it to someone in a chatbox is not exactly the same IMO. This is Github Copilot after all. I use it daily and it autocompletes lines of code or generates functions you can find on stackoverflow. It's not letting giving you the source code to Twitter in full and letting you put it on the internet as a business under another name.

belorn 2y ago

We are currently seeing the music industry reacting to AI learning a bunch of music patterns and chord progressions and outputting works that sounds very similar to existing music and artists. They are not liking it. To just see how much they disliked it, youtube copyright strikes is basically a trained AI to detect music patterns to identify sound with slight variations or copyrighted songs and take videos down. Generating slight variations was one of the early method that videos used to bypass the take down system.