5 ms·

So you'd prefer that only rich megacorporations and criminals have access to this technology, and not normal people and researchers?

Joel_Mckay 10mo ago
The studios did already rip off Mark Hamill of all people. Arguing regulatory capture versus overt piracy is a ridiculous premise. The "AI" firms have so much liquid capital now... they could pay the fines indefinitely in districts that constrain damages, and already settled with larger copyright holders like it was just another nuisance fee. =3
renewiltord 10mo ago
How is that surprising? The advent of modern AI tools has resulted in most people being heavily pro-IP. Everyone now talks about who has the copyright to something and so on.
- beeflet 10mo ago
  intellectual property isn't going to save us. it's a flimsy retort, like the water usage complaints
  - Joel_Mckay 10mo ago
    This covers the data center resource green-washing rhetoric, and most taxpayers will be paying more for energy now regardless of what they think: '"Generative AI" is not what you think it is' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERiXDhLHxmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERiXDhLHxmo And this paper proved the absurd outcome of the bubble is hype: 'Researchers Built a Tiny Economy. AIs Broke It Immediately' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUekLTqV1ME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUekLTqV1ME It is true bubbles driven by the irrational can't be stopped, but one may profit from peoples delusions... and likely get discount GPUs when the economic fiction inevitably implodes. Best of luck =3
    - beeflet 10mo ago
      We can generate more energy, fabricate more computer chips and collect more water, but the impact on labor will be irreversible.
      - Joel_Mckay 10mo ago
        Energy is finite, and asking the public to fund a private firms irrational project is unethical. "Memoirs of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds" (Charles Mackay, 1852) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm I look forwards to buying the failed data center assets. LLM make great search engines, but are not the path to "AGI". Neuromorphic computing looks more interesting. Have a great day =3
        beeflet 9mo ago
        The amount of electricity we can produce is limited only by regulation, because we have practically unlimited amount of fission energy under our feet. That is what you are seeing now with all of these new nuclear plants being built and de-decommissioned. If that is too scary for you, we also have the world's greatest reserves of shale gas. I am not pro-AI, and I agree that the market will crash. But what I take issue with is this NIMBY mentality that we should nitpick proposals with a thousand fake reasons for why we can't build anything in this country. We can't do big engineering projects like china because they are too much of an eyesore or they use too much water or they're not zoned correctly. We can't put up a new apartment block, it's too much of a strain on the local water supply. Okay can we collect more water, invest in a new reservoir? Of course not, it will endanger the tumbleweed population. We can't let a new datacenter go up because it will cause everyone's power prices to increase. Okay maybe we can produce more power?? No, BECAUSE ENERGY IS FINITE AND THE SUN IS JUST GOING TO EXPLODE ANYWAYS SO WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE. WTF? Why can't we build things? Because we just can't, and actually it's impossible and you are rude for suggesting we build anything ever. It's circular reasoning designed to placate suburban NPCs. If you oppose AI because it is ruining art, or it will drive people out of jobs, just say that. Because these fake complaints about power and water are neither compelling nor effective (they are just technological and material problems which will be ironed out in the coming generations).
- kouteiheika 10mo ago
  Yes, people are now very pro-IP because it's the big corporations that are pirating stuff and harvesting data en-masse to train their models, and not just some random teenagers in their basements grabbing an mp3 off LimeWire. So now the IP laws, instead of being draconian, are suddenly not adequate. But what is frustrating to me is that the second order effects of making the law more restrictive will be doing us all a big disfavor. It will not stop this technology, but it will just make it more inaccessible to normal people and put more power into the hands of the big corporations which the "they're stealing our data!" people would like to stop. Right now I (a random nobody) can go on HuggingFace, download model which is more powerful that anything that was available 6 months ago, and run it locally on my machine, unrestricted and private. Can we agree that's, in general, a good thing? So now if you make the model creators liable for misuse of the models, or make the models a derivative work of its training data, or anything along these lines - what do you think will happen? Yep. The model on HuggingFace is gone, and now the only thing you'll have access to is a paywalled, heavily filtered and censored version of it provided by a megacorporation, while the megacorporation itself has internally an unlimited, unfiltered access to that model.
  - Joel_Mckay 10mo ago
    >Can we agree that's, in general, a good thing? The models come from overt piracy, and are often used to make fake news, slander people, or other illegal content. Sure it can be funny, but the poison fruit from a poison tree is always going to be overt piracy. I agree research is exempt from copyright, but people cashing in on unpaid artists works for commercial purposes is a copyright violation predating the DMCA/RIAA. We must admit these models require piracy, and can never be seen as ethical. =3 '"Generative AI" is not what you think it is' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERiXDhLHxmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERiXDhLHxmo
    - kouteiheika 9mo ago
      > are often used to make fake news, slander people, or other illegal content. That's not how these models are used in the the vast majority of cases. This argument is like saying "kitchen knives are often used to kill people so we need to ban the sale of kitchen knives". Do some people use kitchen knives to kill? Sure. Does it mean they should be banned because of that? > I agree research is exempt from copyright, but people cashing in on unpaid artists works for commercial purposes is a copyright violation predating the DMCA/RIAA. We must admit these models require piracy, and can never be seen as ethical. =3 So, may I ask - where exactly do you draw the line? For the sake of argument, let's imagine something like this: 1. I scrape the whole internet onto my disk. 2. I go through the text, and gather every word bigram, and build a frequency table. 3. I delete everything I scraped. 4. I use that frequency table (which, compared to the exabytes of the source text I used to build it, is a couple hundred megabytes at most) to build a text generator. 5. I profit from this text generator. Would you consider this unethical too? Because this is essentially how LLMs work, just in a slightly fancier way. On what exact basis do you draw the line between "ethical" and "unethical" here?
spencerflem 10mo ago
Why not? I don’t think normal people have very many good uses for deepfake tech.
- scotty79 10mo ago
  Who is normal person? Non-creative? Deepfakes have immense creative potential.
  - spencerflem 10mo ago
    I don’t really see it to be honest. I feel like their best and most natural use is scams. Maybe a different comparison you would agree with is Stingrays, the devices that track cell phones. Ideally nobody would have them but as is, I’m glad they’re not easily available to any random person to abuse.
  - Joel_Mckay 10mo ago
    >Deepfakes have immense creative potential ...and the lawyers win. =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpcWv1lHU6I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpcWv1lHU6I
karlgkk 9mo ago
No? Show me where I said that please :)

Joel_Mckay 10mo ago

The studios did already rip off Mark Hamill of all people. Arguing regulatory capture versus overt piracy is a ridiculous premise. The "AI" firms have so much liquid capital now... they could pay the fines indefinitely in districts that constrain damages, and already settled with larger copyright holders like it was just another nuisance fee. =3

renewiltord 10mo ago

How is that surprising? The advent of modern AI tools has resulted in most people being heavily pro-IP. Everyone now talks about who has the copyright to something and so on.

beeflet 10mo ago
intellectual property isn't going to save us. it's a flimsy retort, like the water usage complaints
- Joel_Mckay 10mo ago
  This covers the data center resource green-washing rhetoric, and most taxpayers will be paying more for energy now regardless of what they think: '"Generative AI" is not what you think it is' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERiXDhLHxmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERiXDhLHxmo And this paper proved the absurd outcome of the bubble is hype: 'Researchers Built a Tiny Economy. AIs Broke It Immediately' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUekLTqV1ME https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUekLTqV1ME It is true bubbles driven by the irrational can't be stopped, but one may profit from peoples delusions... and likely get discount GPUs when the economic fiction inevitably implodes. Best of luck =3
  - beeflet 10mo ago
    We can generate more energy, fabricate more computer chips and collect more water, but the impact on labor will be irreversible.
    - Joel_Mckay 10mo ago
      Energy is finite, and asking the public to fund a private firms irrational project is unethical. "Memoirs of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds" (Charles Mackay, 1852) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm https://www.gutenberg.org/files/24518/24518-h/24518-h.htm I look forwards to buying the failed data center assets. LLM make great search engines, but are not the path to "AGI". Neuromorphic computing looks more interesting. Have a great day =3
      - beeflet 9mo ago
        The amount of electricity we can produce is limited only by regulation, because we have practically unlimited amount of fission energy under our feet. That is what you are seeing now with all of these new nuclear plants being built and de-decommissioned. If that is too scary for you, we also have the world's greatest reserves of shale gas. I am not pro-AI, and I agree that the market will crash. But what I take issue with is this NIMBY mentality that we should nitpick proposals with a thousand fake reasons for why we can't build anything in this country. We can't do big engineering projects like china because they are too much of an eyesore or they use too much water or they're not zoned correctly. We can't put up a new apartment block, it's too much of a strain on the local water supply. Okay can we collect more water, invest in a new reservoir? Of course not, it will endanger the tumbleweed population. We can't let a new datacenter go up because it will cause everyone's power prices to increase. Okay maybe we can produce more power?? No, BECAUSE ENERGY IS FINITE AND THE SUN IS JUST GOING TO EXPLODE ANYWAYS SO WHY DO YOU EVEN CARE. WTF? Why can't we build things? Because we just can't, and actually it's impossible and you are rude for suggesting we build anything ever. It's circular reasoning designed to placate suburban NPCs. If you oppose AI because it is ruining art, or it will drive people out of jobs, just say that. Because these fake complaints about power and water are neither compelling nor effective (they are just technological and material problems which will be ironed out in the coming generations).
kouteiheika 10mo ago
Yes, people are now very pro-IP because it's the big corporations that are pirating stuff and harvesting data en-masse to train their models, and not just some random teenagers in their basements grabbing an mp3 off LimeWire. So now the IP laws, instead of being draconian, are suddenly not adequate. But what is frustrating to me is that the second order effects of making the law more restrictive will be doing us all a big disfavor. It will not stop this technology, but it will just make it more inaccessible to normal people and put more power into the hands of the big corporations which the "they're stealing our data!" people would like to stop. Right now I (a random nobody) can go on HuggingFace, download model which is more powerful that anything that was available 6 months ago, and run it locally on my machine, unrestricted and private. Can we agree that's, in general, a good thing? So now if you make the model creators liable for misuse of the models, or make the models a derivative work of its training data, or anything along these lines - what do you think will happen? Yep. The model on HuggingFace is gone, and now the only thing you'll have access to is a paywalled, heavily filtered and censored version of it provided by a megacorporation, while the megacorporation itself has internally an unlimited, unfiltered access to that model.
- Joel_Mckay 10mo ago
  >Can we agree that's, in general, a good thing? The models come from overt piracy, and are often used to make fake news, slander people, or other illegal content. Sure it can be funny, but the poison fruit from a poison tree is always going to be overt piracy. I agree research is exempt from copyright, but people cashing in on unpaid artists works for commercial purposes is a copyright violation predating the DMCA/RIAA. We must admit these models require piracy, and can never be seen as ethical. =3 '"Generative AI" is not what you think it is' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERiXDhLHxmo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERiXDhLHxmo
  - kouteiheika 9mo ago
    > are often used to make fake news, slander people, or other illegal content. That's not how these models are used in the the vast majority of cases. This argument is like saying "kitchen knives are often used to kill people so we need to ban the sale of kitchen knives". Do some people use kitchen knives to kill? Sure. Does it mean they should be banned because of that? > I agree research is exempt from copyright, but people cashing in on unpaid artists works for commercial purposes is a copyright violation predating the DMCA/RIAA. We must admit these models require piracy, and can never be seen as ethical. =3 So, may I ask - where exactly do you draw the line? For the sake of argument, let's imagine something like this: 1. I scrape the whole internet onto my disk. 2. I go through the text, and gather every word bigram, and build a frequency table. 3. I delete everything I scraped. 4. I use that frequency table (which, compared to the exabytes of the source text I used to build it, is a couple hundred megabytes at most) to build a text generator. 5. I profit from this text generator. Would you consider this unethical too? Because this is essentially how LLMs work, just in a slightly fancier way. On what exact basis do you draw the line between "ethical" and "unethical" here?

spencerflem 10mo ago

Why not? I don’t think normal people have very many good uses for deepfake tech.

scotty79 10mo ago
Who is normal person? Non-creative? Deepfakes have immense creative potential.
- spencerflem 10mo ago
  I don’t really see it to be honest. I feel like their best and most natural use is scams. Maybe a different comparison you would agree with is Stingrays, the devices that track cell phones. Ideally nobody would have them but as is, I’m glad they’re not easily available to any random person to abuse.
- Joel_Mckay 10mo ago
  >Deepfakes have immense creative potential ...and the lawyers win. =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpcWv1lHU6I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpcWv1lHU6I

karlgkk 9mo ago

No? Show me where I said that please :)