4 ms·

> How does it know? Because it’s trained on all the ramen recipes that multiple recipe authors spent hours, weeks, years perfecting. Generative AI is a blender

> How does it know? Because it’s trained on all the ramen recipes that multiple recipe authors spent hours, weeks, years perfecting. Generative AI is a blender chewing up other people’s hard work, outputting a sad mush that kind of resembles what you’re looking for, but without any of the credibility or soul. Magic. There are a handful of interesting critiques of technological advancement. But this essentially boils down to anti-commons, which I think is the wrong way to approach. It's necessarily a conservative, reactionary philosophy. I dont know how to generously interpret the authors point. The central idea being that we're going to _credentialize_ the human experience. The ramen isn't good because it tastes good, it's because a person worked hard to imagine the combination of ingredients. That we could reproduce this with a novel tool somehow makes the ramen taste worst. Or reduces the qualia of cooking and eating it. I predict a counter culture in the coming years around this. There's probably a way to make money off of it.

martin-t 1y ago
It's not about the ramen being good or bad. It's about the recipe having artistic, intellectual and monetary value because human time was spent to produce it.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- potsandpans 1y ago
  Which is again, a reactionary and conservative critique that is essentially anti-commons. It's not pro-human, or pro-soul. It's pro intellectual property, as evidenced by your glib and punchy response: its more important that people are rewarded for their ramen recipes than it is for the masses to have access to the general form and guidance of how to make ramen. Perhaps the suggestion is, if people couldnt get rewarded for their ramen recipes then we'd have no ramen. It should be apparent that this is absurd stance. Ramen is such a good example. The suggestion is that somehow some people have the intellectual ownership over a common set of ingredients that describe a general cultural phenomena. Question: when you downvoted the comment, what exactly were you feeling? Are you that sensitive to critique? I've attached no value judgement to being reactionary or conservative.
  - martin-t 1y ago
    Yes, it's absolutely essential that people are rewarded for intellectual work, otherwise they'll stop doing it. "The masses" have absolutely no right to demand I hand them what I produce, whether physical or intellectual. On the other hand, when somebody makes money from my work, whether intellectual or physical, I am entitled to a reward proportional to the amount of work I did. So yes, I am pro-human. I am just not pro-freeloader or pro-parasite.
    - potsandpans 1y ago
      By the logic of quoted text, you don't own your ideas, they're merely a ground up synthesis of other people's ip. Nothing you did came from a vacuum. You owe all of human history and culture. The stance is incoherent. It's evidenced by each followup, how your language becomes even more provacative. > parasite Yes. Very pro-human. Now tell me how you _really_ feel about the commons.
      - martin-t 1y ago
        What quoted text? > The stance is incoherent. Mine? Explain how. Yours? Certainly: > your glib and punchy response: its more important that people are rewarded for their ramen recipes than it is for the masses to have access to the general form and guidance of how to make ramen You argue as if without statistical models this knowledge is lost or unavailable. This is clearly not the case - otherwise what would those models train on? > your language becomes even more provacative I said 1) people should get paid for work 2) people have no right to take from others without consent 3) people should get paid for work, again. How provocative... > Yes. Very pro-human. Now tell me how you _really_ feel about the commons. There are no commons. There are people with various approaches to life, some of whom for example take from others a) without consent b) more than they give back by a wide margin c) abuse their position to fake consent. --- BTW, you said I am not pro-soul, and I am not in fact pro- anything which does not exist according to the best of my/human knowledge... ...but unrelated topics leaking to output from training data are something that happens with LLM-generated text so this might be relevant: https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-to-people/ https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-...
account42 1y ago
It's not anti-commons, it's anti-commoditization.

martin-t 1y ago

It's not about the ramen being good or bad. It's about the recipe having artistic, intellectual and monetary value because human time was spent to produce it.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
potsandpans 1y ago
Which is again, a reactionary and conservative critique that is essentially anti-commons. It's not pro-human, or pro-soul. It's pro intellectual property, as evidenced by your glib and punchy response: its more important that people are rewarded for their ramen recipes than it is for the masses to have access to the general form and guidance of how to make ramen. Perhaps the suggestion is, if people couldnt get rewarded for their ramen recipes then we'd have no ramen. It should be apparent that this is absurd stance. Ramen is such a good example. The suggestion is that somehow some people have the intellectual ownership over a common set of ingredients that describe a general cultural phenomena. Question: when you downvoted the comment, what exactly were you feeling? Are you that sensitive to critique? I've attached no value judgement to being reactionary or conservative.
- martin-t 1y ago
  Yes, it's absolutely essential that people are rewarded for intellectual work, otherwise they'll stop doing it. "The masses" have absolutely no right to demand I hand them what I produce, whether physical or intellectual. On the other hand, when somebody makes money from my work, whether intellectual or physical, I am entitled to a reward proportional to the amount of work I did. So yes, I am pro-human. I am just not pro-freeloader or pro-parasite.
  - potsandpans 1y ago
    By the logic of quoted text, you don't own your ideas, they're merely a ground up synthesis of other people's ip. Nothing you did came from a vacuum. You owe all of human history and culture. The stance is incoherent. It's evidenced by each followup, how your language becomes even more provacative. > parasite Yes. Very pro-human. Now tell me how you _really_ feel about the commons.
    - martin-t 1y ago
      What quoted text? > The stance is incoherent. Mine? Explain how. Yours? Certainly: > your glib and punchy response: its more important that people are rewarded for their ramen recipes than it is for the masses to have access to the general form and guidance of how to make ramen You argue as if without statistical models this knowledge is lost or unavailable. This is clearly not the case - otherwise what would those models train on? > your language becomes even more provacative I said 1) people should get paid for work 2) people have no right to take from others without consent 3) people should get paid for work, again. How provocative... > Yes. Very pro-human. Now tell me how you _really_ feel about the commons. There are no commons. There are people with various approaches to life, some of whom for example take from others a) without consent b) more than they give back by a wide margin c) abuse their position to fake consent. --- BTW, you said I am not pro-soul, and I am not in fact pro- anything which does not exist according to the best of my/human knowledge... ...but unrelated topics leaking to output from training data are something that happens with LLM-generated text so this might be relevant: https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-to-people/ https://distantprovince.by/posts/its-rude-to-show-ai-output-...

account42 1y ago

It's not anti-commons, it's anti-commoditization.