3 ms·

I agree for the most part that 2 is what most people find unacceptable, not 1. The problem is that, like any general intelligence (e.g. humans), any sufficient

I agree for the most part that 2 is what most people find unacceptable, not 1. The problem is that, like any general intelligence (e.g. humans), any sufficiently generalized model capable of 1 will also necessarily be capable of 2, regardless of whether it's trained on copyrighted material or not. How do you make an AI model that's capable of summarizing Wikipedia articles but not news articles? Or that's capable of generating consistent images of my original character from a reference photo but not images of Mickey Mouse from the same? This is achievable only by restricting software freedom; by taking measures to prevent users from "running the program as they wish" and from "studying the source code and making changes".

Ajedi32 2y ago
I'll note that the way we have typically enforced restrictions on the behavior of general intelligences in the past (before AI) is to pass laws and enforce punishments if the laws are broken. Not to try to somehow take away people's ability to break the law in the first place, because that would require unacceptably onerous restrictions on human freedom. I think the same principle applies to AI. Trying to make it impossible for people to use AI to break the law is a lost cause, only achievable by unacceptably onerous restrictions on human freedom. Instead, we should do what we've always done: make certain actions illegal and punish those who do them anyway in violation of the law. Maybe new laws might be required for that in some cases (e.g. deepfake porn) but for the most part I think the laws we already have on the books are sufficient, maybe with minor tweaks.
- eropple 2y ago
  That all sounds great until you're dealing with deepfakes that come from a country without an extradition treaty?
  - Ajedi32 2y ago
    Not really that different from other forms of illegal content coming from countries without an extradition treaty. (Piracy, scam calls, CP, etc.) Trying to stop it by imposing onerous restrictions on your own citizens isn't likely to be effective.

Ajedi32 2y ago

I'll note that the way we have typically enforced restrictions on the behavior of general intelligences in the past (before AI) is to pass laws and enforce punishments if the laws are broken. Not to try to somehow take away people's ability to break the law in the first place, because that would require unacceptably onerous restrictions on human freedom. I think the same principle applies to AI. Trying to make it impossible for people to use AI to break the law is a lost cause, only achievable by unacceptably onerous restrictions on human freedom. Instead, we should do what we've always done: make certain actions illegal and punish those who do them anyway in violation of the law. Maybe new laws might be required for that in some cases (e.g. deepfake porn) but for the most part I think the laws we already have on the books are sufficient, maybe with minor tweaks.

eropple 2y ago
That all sounds great until you're dealing with deepfakes that come from a country without an extradition treaty?
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  Not really that different from other forms of illegal content coming from countries without an extradition treaty. (Piracy, scam calls, CP, etc.) Trying to stop it by imposing onerous restrictions on your own citizens isn't likely to be effective.