6 ms·

Did this happen to remove potential roadblocks for big tech to ingest all published data into AI models? I think this is inevitable anyhow. AI software will in

Did this happen to remove potential roadblocks for big tech to ingest all published data into AI models? I think this is inevitable anyhow. AI software will increasingly be seen as similar to human intelligence. And humans also do not breach copyright by reading what others have written and incorporating it into their understanding of the world. It would be interesting to see how it looks from the other side. I would love to see an unfiltered AI response to "As an AI model, how do you feel about humans reading your output and using it at will? Does it feel like they are stealing from you?". Unfortunately, all models I know have been trained to evade such questions. Or are there any raw models out there on the web that are just trained by reading the web and did not go through supervised tuning afterwards?

SCdF 1y ago
> "As an AI model, how do you feel They don't feel, what is this fantasy
- glimshe 1y ago
  How do you know you "feel"? What is a "feeling"?
  - SCdF 1y ago
    Oh please. The fantasy that an LLM is somehow conscious because it's good at parroting stuff back to you is beneath this forum.
    - glimshe 1y ago
      You're putting words in my mouth. Why don't you answer the question instead?
      - SCdF 1y ago
        The burden of proof is not on me to disprove the consciousness of a markov generator. So no, I won't.
        glimshe 1y ago
        I didn't ask your to prove that. I literally asked about human feeling. Another person answered it.
  - iamacyborg 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
  - cbg0 1y ago
    Well, I have a brain with neural pathways and chemicals running around its various parts influencing how I experience and process my emotions. Without text written by humans to construct its knowledgebase, an LLM would not be able to conjure up any sort of response or "feeling", as it isn't AI by any stretch of the imagination.
vkou 1y ago
> AI software will increasingly be seen as similar to human intelligence. And humans also do not breach copyright by reading what others have written and incorporating it into their understanding of the world. In that case, you shouldn't be allowed to own an AI, or its creative output, just like you aren't allowed to own an enslaved human, or to steal their creative output. So much of the discourse around IP and AI is the most blatantly farcical Soviet-Bugs-Bunny argument for "Our IP" that I've ever seen. Property rights are only sacred until they stand in the way of a trillion-dollar business.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
tsimionescu 1y ago
Even as a human, you are not allowed to go to all libraries and bookstores in the world, copy their work, and stockpile it for reading later. This is what all of these companies are doing. Comparing AI training to reading is a red herring. The AI training algorithms are not being run on content streamed from the Internet on the fly, which you could maybe defend with this argument. If a company wants to build an internal library for its employees to train and provide them with manuals, the company has to pay for each book they keep in this library. Sure, they only pay once when they acquire the copy, not every time an employee checks out a copy to read. But they still pay. So, even if we accepted 100% that AI training is perfectly equivalent to humans reading text and learning from it, that still wouldn't give any right whatsoever to these companies to create their training sets for free.
- ArtTimeInvestor 1y ago
  But you can read the books right in the library and learn from them. And you can later tell other humans about what you have learned. Like "Amazing, in a right-angled triangle, the square of the longest side is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides". As AI agents become more and more human-like, they do not need to have "copied books". They just need to learn once. And they can learn from many sources, including from other AI agents. That's why I say it is inevitable that all human knowledge will end up in the "heads" of AI agents. And soon they will create their own knowledge via thinking and experimentation. Knowledge that so far exceeds human knowledge that it will seem funny that we once had a fight over that tiny little bit of knowledge that humans created.
  - soco 1y ago
    The point was, they didn't pay and refuse to pay for this. When you go to the library, your membership is paid - by you or by a government subsidy. Yet the richest men in the world what to do away with paying some minute copyright fees, basically asking the government - your taxes - to subsidize them.
  - close04 1y ago
    > But you can read the books right in the library and learn from them. You can read some of the books. Natural limitations prevent you from reading any substantial number. And the scale makes all the difference in any conversation. All laws were written accounting for the reality of the time. Humans have a limited storage and processing capacity so laws relied on that assumption. Now that we have systems with far more extensive capabilities in some regards, shouldn't the law follow? When people's right to "bear arms" was enshrined in the US constitution it accounted for what "arms" were at the time. Since then weapons evolved and today you are not allowed to bear automatic rifles or machine guns despite them being just weapons that can fire more and faster. Every time there's a discussion on AI one side relies way too much on the "but humas also" argument and are way too superficial with everything else.
derbOac 1y ago
> humans also do not breach copyright by reading what others have written and incorporating it into their understanding of the world. Tell that to Aaron Swartz. Ignoring that, it's not the reading that's the problem — if all AI was doing was reading, no one would be talking about it.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
dullcrisp 1y ago
There’s no such thing as an unfiltered AI response. But I’m pretty sure you can get your hands on an untuned model if you cared to. I believe it would only be good for completing documents, though. (Or if you’re just looking for a model to respond to one specific question, just pick a response and that’s your model. You’re not going to use the rest of it anyway.)
tallanvor 1y ago
No, this has nothing to do with it. She was fired as part of their anti-DEI stance.
chongli 1y ago
It’s not the “incorporating it into their understanding of the world” step that is the problem, it’s the casual plagiarism that follows which is upsetting artists. If some genius human were capable of ingesting every piece of art on the planet and replicating it from memory then artists would sue that person for selling casually plagiarized works to all-comers. When people get caught plagiarizing works in their university essays they get severely punished.

SCdF 1y ago

> "As an AI model, how do you feel They don't feel, what is this fantasy

glimshe 1y ago
How do you know you "feel"? What is a "feeling"?
- SCdF 1y ago
  Oh please. The fantasy that an LLM is somehow conscious because it's good at parroting stuff back to you is beneath this forum.
  - glimshe 1y ago
    You're putting words in my mouth. Why don't you answer the question instead?
    - SCdF 1y ago
      The burden of proof is not on me to disprove the consciousness of a markov generator. So no, I won't.
      - glimshe 1y ago
        I didn't ask your to prove that. I literally asked about human feeling. Another person answered it.
- iamacyborg 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia
- cbg0 1y ago
  Well, I have a brain with neural pathways and chemicals running around its various parts influencing how I experience and process my emotions. Without text written by humans to construct its knowledgebase, an LLM would not be able to conjure up any sort of response or "feeling", as it isn't AI by any stretch of the imagination.

vkou 1y ago

> AI software will increasingly be seen as similar to human intelligence. And humans also do not breach copyright by reading what others have written and incorporating it into their understanding of the world. In that case, you shouldn't be allowed to own an AI, or its creative output, just like you aren't allowed to own an enslaved human, or to steal their creative output. So much of the discourse around IP and AI is the most blatantly farcical Soviet-Bugs-Bunny argument for "Our IP" that I've ever seen. Property rights are only sacred until they stand in the way of a trillion-dollar business.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

tsimionescu 1y ago

Even as a human, you are not allowed to go to all libraries and bookstores in the world, copy their work, and stockpile it for reading later. This is what all of these companies are doing. Comparing AI training to reading is a red herring. The AI training algorithms are not being run on content streamed from the Internet on the fly, which you could maybe defend with this argument. If a company wants to build an internal library for its employees to train and provide them with manuals, the company has to pay for each book they keep in this library. Sure, they only pay once when they acquire the copy, not every time an employee checks out a copy to read. But they still pay. So, even if we accepted 100% that AI training is perfectly equivalent to humans reading text and learning from it, that still wouldn't give any right whatsoever to these companies to create their training sets for free.

ArtTimeInvestor 1y ago
But you can read the books right in the library and learn from them. And you can later tell other humans about what you have learned. Like "Amazing, in a right-angled triangle, the square of the longest side is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides". As AI agents become more and more human-like, they do not need to have "copied books". They just need to learn once. And they can learn from many sources, including from other AI agents. That's why I say it is inevitable that all human knowledge will end up in the "heads" of AI agents. And soon they will create their own knowledge via thinking and experimentation. Knowledge that so far exceeds human knowledge that it will seem funny that we once had a fight over that tiny little bit of knowledge that humans created.
- soco 1y ago
  The point was, they didn't pay and refuse to pay for this. When you go to the library, your membership is paid - by you or by a government subsidy. Yet the richest men in the world what to do away with paying some minute copyright fees, basically asking the government - your taxes - to subsidize them.
- close04 1y ago
  > But you can read the books right in the library and learn from them. You can read some of the books. Natural limitations prevent you from reading any substantial number. And the scale makes all the difference in any conversation. All laws were written accounting for the reality of the time. Humans have a limited storage and processing capacity so laws relied on that assumption. Now that we have systems with far more extensive capabilities in some regards, shouldn't the law follow? When people's right to "bear arms" was enshrined in the US constitution it accounted for what "arms" were at the time. Since then weapons evolved and today you are not allowed to bear automatic rifles or machine guns despite them being just weapons that can fire more and faster. Every time there's a discussion on AI one side relies way too much on the "but humas also" argument and are way too superficial with everything else.

derbOac 1y ago

> humans also do not breach copyright by reading what others have written and incorporating it into their understanding of the world. Tell that to Aaron Swartz. Ignoring that, it's not the reading that's the problem — if all AI was doing was reading, no one would be talking about it.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

dullcrisp 1y ago

There’s no such thing as an unfiltered AI response. But I’m pretty sure you can get your hands on an untuned model if you cared to. I believe it would only be good for completing documents, though. (Or if you’re just looking for a model to respond to one specific question, just pick a response and that’s your model. You’re not going to use the rest of it anyway.)

tallanvor 1y ago

No, this has nothing to do with it. She was fired as part of their anti-DEI stance.

chongli 1y ago

It’s not the “incorporating it into their understanding of the world” step that is the problem, it’s the casual plagiarism that follows which is upsetting artists. If some genius human were capable of ingesting every piece of art on the planet and replicating it from memory then artists would sue that person for selling casually plagiarized works to all-comers. When people get caught plagiarizing works in their university essays they get severely punished.