7 ms·

I'm strictly speaking never going to think of model distillation as "stealing." It goes against the spirit of scientific research, and besides every tech compan

by advael 2y ago

I'm strictly speaking never going to think of model distillation as "stealing." It goes against the spirit of scientific research, and besides every tech company has lost my permission to define what I think of as theft forever

surajrmal 2y ago
Maybe but something has gotta pay the bills to justify the cutting edge. I guess it's a similar problem to researching medicine.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  Well the artists and writers also want to pay their bills. We threw them under the bus, might as well throw openAI too and get an actual open AI that we can use
- advael 2y ago
  The investment thrown at OpenAI seems deeply inflated for how much meaningful progress they're able to make with it I think it's clear that innovative breakthroughs in bleeding-edge research are not just a matter of blindly hurling more money at a company to build unprecedentedly expensive datacenters But also, even if that was a way to do it, I don't think we should be wielding the law to enable privately-held companies to be at the forefront of research, especially in such a grossly inconsistent manner
eru 2y ago
At most it would be illicit copying. Though it's poetic justice that OpenAI is complaining about someone else playing fast and loose with copyright rules.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Stochastic decompression. Dass-it.
- downrightmike 2y ago
  The First Amendment is not just about free speech, but also the right to read, the only question is if AI has that right.
  - organsnyder 2y ago
    If AI was just reading, there would be much less controversy. It would also be pretty useless. The issue is that AI is creating its own derivative content based on the content it ingests.
    - boxcake 2y ago
      Isn't any answer to a question which hasn't been previously answered a derivative work? Or when a human write a parody of a song, or when a new type of music is influenced by something which came before.
      - nrabulinski 2y ago
        This argument is so bizarre to me. Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts. AI doesn’t have that. Even if someone’s comment is influenced by all the data they have ingested over their lives, their style is distinct and deliberate, to the point where people have been doxxed before/anonymous accounts have been uncovered because someone recognized the writing style. There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical probabilities. There’s no new or spontaneous thoughts, at most pseudorandomness introduced by the author of the model interface. Even if you give GenAI unlimited time, it will not develop its own writing/drawing/painting style or come up with a novel idea, because strictly by how it works it can only create „new” work by interpolating its dataset
        Ringz 2y ago
        > Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts. The compatibility of determinism and freedom of will is still controversially debated. There is a good chance that Humans don’t „create“. > There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical probabilities. There’s no new or spontaneous thoughts, at most pseudorandomness introduced by the author of the model interface. You can say exactly the same about deterministic humans since it is often argued that the randomness of thermodynamic or quantum mechanical processes is irrelevant to the question of whether free will is possible. This is justified by the fact that our concept of freedom means a decision that is self-determined by reasons and not a sequence of events determined by chance.
- antimatter15 2y ago
  It's hardly even illicit- at least in the United States, the output of an AI isn't copyrightable.
  - eru 2y ago
    Was that decided in courts, yet? In any case, copyright ain't the only thing that prevents copying.
fennecfoxy 2y ago
I think it's less about that and more whether or not they used the free or paid API. I think if OpenAI (or any other company) are paid for their compute time/access as anybody would, then using content generated by other models is fair game. Because it's an active/ongoing cost and not a passive one. Whereas if someone trained on my dumb Tweets or HN posts then so be it; it's a passive cost for me - I paid my time to say x thing for my own benefits (tribal monk-e social interaction) therefore I have already gotten the value out of it.

by advael 2y ago

surajrmal 2y ago

Maybe but something has gotta pay the bills to justify the cutting edge. I guess it's a similar problem to researching medicine.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
Well the artists and writers also want to pay their bills. We threw them under the bus, might as well throw openAI too and get an actual open AI that we can use
advael 2y ago
The investment thrown at OpenAI seems deeply inflated for how much meaningful progress they're able to make with it I think it's clear that innovative breakthroughs in bleeding-edge research are not just a matter of blindly hurling more money at a company to build unprecedentedly expensive datacenters But also, even if that was a way to do it, I don't think we should be wielding the law to enable privately-held companies to be at the forefront of research, especially in such a grossly inconsistent manner

eru 2y ago

At most it would be illicit copying. Though it's poetic justice that OpenAI is complaining about someone else playing fast and loose with copyright rules.

tomrod 2y ago
Stochastic decompression. Dass-it.
downrightmike 2y ago
The First Amendment is not just about free speech, but also the right to read, the only question is if AI has that right.
- organsnyder 2y ago
  If AI was just reading, there would be much less controversy. It would also be pretty useless. The issue is that AI is creating its own derivative content based on the content it ingests.
  - boxcake 2y ago
    Isn't any answer to a question which hasn't been previously answered a derivative work? Or when a human write a parody of a song, or when a new type of music is influenced by something which came before.
    - nrabulinski 2y ago
      This argument is so bizarre to me. Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts. AI doesn’t have that. Even if someone’s comment is influenced by all the data they have ingested over their lives, their style is distinct and deliberate, to the point where people have been doxxed before/anonymous accounts have been uncovered because someone recognized the writing style. There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical probabilities. There’s no new or spontaneous thoughts, at most pseudorandomness introduced by the author of the model interface. Even if you give GenAI unlimited time, it will not develop its own writing/drawing/painting style or come up with a novel idea, because strictly by how it works it can only create „new” work by interpolating its dataset
      - Ringz 2y ago
        > Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts. The compatibility of determinism and freedom of will is still controversially debated. There is a good chance that Humans don’t „create“. > There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical probabilities. There’s no new or spontaneous thoughts, at most pseudorandomness introduced by the author of the model interface. You can say exactly the same about deterministic humans since it is often argued that the randomness of thermodynamic or quantum mechanical processes is irrelevant to the question of whether free will is possible. This is justified by the fact that our concept of freedom means a decision that is self-determined by reasons and not a sequence of events determined by chance.
antimatter15 2y ago
It's hardly even illicit- at least in the United States, the output of an AI isn't copyrightable.
- eru 2y ago
  Was that decided in courts, yet? In any case, copyright ain't the only thing that prevents copying.

fennecfoxy 2y ago

I think it's less about that and more whether or not they used the free or paid API. I think if OpenAI (or any other company) are paid for their compute time/access as anybody would, then using content generated by other models is fair game. Because it's an active/ongoing cost and not a passive one. Whereas if someone trained on my dumb Tweets or HN posts then so be it; it's a passive cost for me - I paid my time to say x thing for my own benefits (tribal monk-e social interaction) therefore I have already gotten the value out of it.