4 ms·

LLMs are tools used by people, like typewriters, paintbrushes, and other types of algorithm. If a work is in the public domain, that means that people are free

by Gormo 2y ago

LLMs are tools used by people, like typewriters, paintbrushes, and other types of algorithm. If a work is in the public domain, that means that people are free to copy it, redistribute it, modify it, and create derivative works from it, using whatever tools suit them.

spencerflem 2y ago
Right and sometimes thats cool and sometimes it sucks. Fwiw, I think its a tragedy that our great works of culture can be appropriated to sell Coca-Cola and merchandise
- Gormo 2y ago
  Why is it a tragedy that people are using "our great works of culture" to engage in other activities within our culture?
  - mihaic 2y ago
    You're asking it as a moral question, when I honestly care about the end result. And the end result seems to be going in the same direction as movies, as the range gets narrower in terms of what's produced, and everything is a sequel, remix, reshuffle of previous work. There are exceptions, but their percentage is far lower than in previous decades.
    - Gormo 2y ago
      > You're asking it as a moral question, I'm asking questions about what I could only interpret as a moral proposition. > I honestly care about the end result. You're applying normative criteria to evaluate something, whether it is the initial action or the consequences that proceed from it. But before we event get to normative evaluations, I'm trying to understand what the substantive difference in the two things you're comparing are. It's seems bizarre to consider something to be the cultural inheritance of humanity as a whole, and then complain about certain humans adapting it to cultural activities that you for some reason don't like. > And the end result seems to be going in the same direction as movies, as the range gets narrower in terms of what's produced, and everything is a sequel, remix, reshuffle of previous work. The vast majority of all creative work has always been a remix or reshuffle of previous work. When we were younger, and were being exposed to things for the first time, everything seemed novel and original. Maybe the first time you saw The Lion King, it didn't occur to you that it's essentially a rework of Hamlet, or you never counted how many episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation were based on recycled plots from Homer. But this has always been going on. Sure, it's a little bit more explicit today when you are dealing with big Hollywood productions, since Hollywood has built up a large library of its own output to remix and reshuffle, and people do want to see new iterations of the specific things they grew up with. Still, amidst all that, there's a lot of novel independent creative work being produced. By definition, though, that's all going to be found in niches and not in the mass market -- but it's always been that way. We've also had a massive shift in the specific media people use to express creativity, thanks to the internet. Lots of small-scale independent work just gets self-published on YouTube these days, and doesn't filter through the mass-market studios and publishers anymore. Consider that the increased ability for independent creators to work outside the legacy media has the effect of also limiting the amount of novel work that the legacy media have access to. > There are exceptions, but their percentage is far lower than in previous decades. And vastly higher than in previous previous decades. Compare modern movies to the stuff that Hollywood was putting out during the era of the Hays code. After the collapse of those restrictions, there was an outpouring of pent-up creativity that lasted a few decades. Maybe modern movies aren't as distinct or creative as the ones from the '70s, '80s, and '90s, but try comparing them to the average film from the '40s, '50s, or '60s.
      - mihaic 2y ago
        While I think that you're mostly correct in everything you're saying, I don't think it's the best kind of correct. > You're applying normative criteria to evaluate something I'm explicitly not trying to be objective, purely trying to judge the end result, if I like or dislike it, and what I estimate the future products would look like if the trend continues. I want a world where humans want to create, where the creative process itself is rewarding, and where our common culture is filled with most of the best works. I have no arguments further than that is what I want. > it's essentially a rework of Hamlet When humans rework something, they impart a piece of themselves into the final product. The end result feels like it has soul. An amalgamation designed to maximize revenue no longer feels like it has soul. > try comparing them to the average film from the '40s, '50s, or '60s You're right, some periods were really worse. I don't want to emulate those. But there were miraculous decades in both music and film that I want to use as a benchmark, since we know what's possible at least.
        Gormo 2y ago
        > I want a world where humans want to create, where the creative process itself is rewarding, and where our common culture is filled with most of the best works. Well, that's definitely a moral proposition. And it's also a good description of the world as it already is. > When humans rework something, they impart a piece of themselves into the final product. Personally, I've never encountered any human residue while watching a movie or reading a book. Only memes that propagate independently of their point of origin. I've also never encountered any "soul", though I have often encountered enjoyable, enlightening, and relatable works irrespective of whether the creators intended to maximize their revenue. > I don't want to emulate those. But there were miraculous decades in both music and film that I want to use as a benchmark, since we know what's possible at least. If you use the absolute best of everything as the benchmark against which to measure everything else, and you oppose the very existence of anything that doesn't measure up, then you are fostering an environment that is exactly the opposite of the world you claim to want.
        mihaic 2y ago
- rat87 2y ago
  Why? Some of the greatest bits of culture is advertising. Some not all not most but some. While Coke commercials didn't create the image of americanized Santa as is often claimed they helped shape it. Wily Wonka and the chocolate factory is widely viewed as a classic despite it being a giant Candy ad
  - codetrotter 2y ago
    Interesting! It seems that although the original book was not an ad at all, the 1979 movie adaptation was indeed meant to work as marketing for an upcoming chocolate. > Cadbury and Rowntree's were England's two largest chocolate makers and they each often try to steal trade secrets by sending spies, posing as employees, into the other's factory. Because of this, both companies became highly protective of their chocolate-making processes. It was a combination of this secrecy and the elaborate, often gigantic, machines in the factory that inspired Dahl to write the story. https://roalddahl.fandom.com/wiki/Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Factory https://roalddahl.fandom.com/wiki/Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_... > Wonka Bars were created by Quaker Oats (in conjunction with the producers of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory). The movie was funded largely by Quaker Oats for the intention of promoting the soon to be released Wonka Bars. However, Quaker Oats chose not to market the bars, instead selling the brand to their manufacturer Sunline. > Other varieties of Wonka Bars were subsequently manufactured and sold in the real world, formerly by the Willy Wonka Candy Company, a division of Nestlé. These bars were discontinued in January 2010 due to poor sales. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonka_Bar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonka_Bar

by Gormo 2y ago

spencerflem 2y ago

Right and sometimes thats cool and sometimes it sucks. Fwiw, I think its a tragedy that our great works of culture can be appropriated to sell Coca-Cola and merchandise

Gormo 2y ago
Why is it a tragedy that people are using "our great works of culture" to engage in other activities within our culture?
- mihaic 2y ago
  You're asking it as a moral question, when I honestly care about the end result. And the end result seems to be going in the same direction as movies, as the range gets narrower in terms of what's produced, and everything is a sequel, remix, reshuffle of previous work. There are exceptions, but their percentage is far lower than in previous decades.
  - Gormo 2y ago
    > You're asking it as a moral question, I'm asking questions about what I could only interpret as a moral proposition. > I honestly care about the end result. You're applying normative criteria to evaluate something, whether it is the initial action or the consequences that proceed from it. But before we event get to normative evaluations, I'm trying to understand what the substantive difference in the two things you're comparing are. It's seems bizarre to consider something to be the cultural inheritance of humanity as a whole, and then complain about certain humans adapting it to cultural activities that you for some reason don't like. > And the end result seems to be going in the same direction as movies, as the range gets narrower in terms of what's produced, and everything is a sequel, remix, reshuffle of previous work. The vast majority of all creative work has always been a remix or reshuffle of previous work. When we were younger, and were being exposed to things for the first time, everything seemed novel and original. Maybe the first time you saw The Lion King, it didn't occur to you that it's essentially a rework of Hamlet, or you never counted how many episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation were based on recycled plots from Homer. But this has always been going on. Sure, it's a little bit more explicit today when you are dealing with big Hollywood productions, since Hollywood has built up a large library of its own output to remix and reshuffle, and people do want to see new iterations of the specific things they grew up with. Still, amidst all that, there's a lot of novel independent creative work being produced. By definition, though, that's all going to be found in niches and not in the mass market -- but it's always been that way. We've also had a massive shift in the specific media people use to express creativity, thanks to the internet. Lots of small-scale independent work just gets self-published on YouTube these days, and doesn't filter through the mass-market studios and publishers anymore. Consider that the increased ability for independent creators to work outside the legacy media has the effect of also limiting the amount of novel work that the legacy media have access to. > There are exceptions, but their percentage is far lower than in previous decades. And vastly higher than in previous previous decades. Compare modern movies to the stuff that Hollywood was putting out during the era of the Hays code. After the collapse of those restrictions, there was an outpouring of pent-up creativity that lasted a few decades. Maybe modern movies aren't as distinct or creative as the ones from the '70s, '80s, and '90s, but try comparing them to the average film from the '40s, '50s, or '60s.
    - mihaic 2y ago
      While I think that you're mostly correct in everything you're saying, I don't think it's the best kind of correct. > You're applying normative criteria to evaluate something I'm explicitly not trying to be objective, purely trying to judge the end result, if I like or dislike it, and what I estimate the future products would look like if the trend continues. I want a world where humans want to create, where the creative process itself is rewarding, and where our common culture is filled with most of the best works. I have no arguments further than that is what I want. > it's essentially a rework of Hamlet When humans rework something, they impart a piece of themselves into the final product. The end result feels like it has soul. An amalgamation designed to maximize revenue no longer feels like it has soul. > try comparing them to the average film from the '40s, '50s, or '60s You're right, some periods were really worse. I don't want to emulate those. But there were miraculous decades in both music and film that I want to use as a benchmark, since we know what's possible at least.
      - Gormo 2y ago
        > I want a world where humans want to create, where the creative process itself is rewarding, and where our common culture is filled with most of the best works. Well, that's definitely a moral proposition. And it's also a good description of the world as it already is. > When humans rework something, they impart a piece of themselves into the final product. Personally, I've never encountered any human residue while watching a movie or reading a book. Only memes that propagate independently of their point of origin. I've also never encountered any "soul", though I have often encountered enjoyable, enlightening, and relatable works irrespective of whether the creators intended to maximize their revenue. > I don't want to emulate those. But there were miraculous decades in both music and film that I want to use as a benchmark, since we know what's possible at least. If you use the absolute best of everything as the benchmark against which to measure everything else, and you oppose the very existence of anything that doesn't measure up, then you are fostering an environment that is exactly the opposite of the world you claim to want.
        mihaic 2y ago
rat87 2y ago
Why? Some of the greatest bits of culture is advertising. Some not all not most but some. While Coke commercials didn't create the image of americanized Santa as is often claimed they helped shape it. Wily Wonka and the chocolate factory is widely viewed as a classic despite it being a giant Candy ad
- codetrotter 2y ago
  Interesting! It seems that although the original book was not an ad at all, the 1979 movie adaptation was indeed meant to work as marketing for an upcoming chocolate. > Cadbury and Rowntree's were England's two largest chocolate makers and they each often try to steal trade secrets by sending spies, posing as employees, into the other's factory. Because of this, both companies became highly protective of their chocolate-making processes. It was a combination of this secrecy and the elaborate, often gigantic, machines in the factory that inspired Dahl to write the story. https://roalddahl.fandom.com/wiki/Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_Factory https://roalddahl.fandom.com/wiki/Charlie_and_the_Chocolate_... > Wonka Bars were created by Quaker Oats (in conjunction with the producers of Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory). The movie was funded largely by Quaker Oats for the intention of promoting the soon to be released Wonka Bars. However, Quaker Oats chose not to market the bars, instead selling the brand to their manufacturer Sunline. > Other varieties of Wonka Bars were subsequently manufactured and sold in the real world, formerly by the Willy Wonka Candy Company, a division of Nestlé. These bars were discontinued in January 2010 due to poor sales. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonka_Bar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonka_Bar