harimau777

5 ms·

61.
by harimau777 2mo ago
Since Ohio is a fairly red state, I wonder if this could be a "You can food some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." As much as I am angry at MAGA for not prioritizing my civi
62.
by harimau777 2mo ago
The artists can demand whatever they want. If the megacorps didn't want to pay it then they shouldn't have used it without permission. Alternatively, they could remove the art from the LLM and divide their past profits among the a
63.
by harimau777 2mo ago
Yes, and they should either be prosecuted or forced to compensate their victims.
64.
by harimau777 2mo ago
There's some big differences: Artist are human There is a dramatic difference between learning from or being inspired by an artist and incorporating it wholesale into an LLM Artists can use human judgement and knowledge of social norms
65.
by harimau777 2mo ago
Yes it does because there's is still direct control from a human. When working with LLMs, even interactive prompting does not provide that level of control.
66.
by harimau777 2mo ago
If we got rid of copyright, what would prevent corporations from simply stealing artist's work?
67.
by harimau777 2mo ago
I think that you might be taking "knowledge" too literally. As I read it, the parent's post was using "knowledge" poetically for the various works that AI companies stole.
68.
by harimau777 2mo ago
I'm not sure that logic holds. If I create a frame for frame copy of Star Wars then I cannot copyright it. However, that doesn't mean that I can still distribute my copy.
69.
by harimau777 2mo ago
The argument could probably be made that we currently don't recognize AI as a person and therefore no one created the work.
70.
by harimau777 2mo ago
I'd say that any use of an AI trained on people's creations without (real) consent and compensation should not be protected.
71.
by harimau777 2mo ago
Then how it is needs to change.
72.
by harimau777 2mo ago
My test would be: Until the AI companies pay back what they have already stolen, then anything that uses AI at all cannot be copyrighted.
73.
by harimau777 2mo ago
Isn't that the core issue? Productivity isn't being shared with the workers who actually produce it.
74.
by harimau777 2mo ago
I mean, can you blame them? Look at the world the boomers damned us to.
75.
by harimau777 2mo ago
Can you explain what you mean by "yielding all of the power"? I don't think we can really just dismiss the people who live near proposed data centers and don't have 401Ks. What do they get out of the deal?
76.
by harimau777 2mo ago
I think that's another example of the social contract breaking down. Lots of people either cannot afford to invest or no longer believe that investing will allow them to afford things like a house or retirement that were traditionally
77.
by harimau777 2mo ago
I don't necessarily know what the parent was referring to, but I can see two this: Megacorps often get significant tax breaks to build AI in a community. Megacorps advertise that datacenters will create jobs but don't mention that
78.
by harimau777 2mo ago
I think that potentially the difference is that, while people do in some sense want AI, they don't want it in the same way that they want Netflix. I'd compare it to Amazon: it perfectly possible for people to like the ability to l
79.
by harimau777 2mo ago
It kind of feels to me like a big element of this is that the social contract in America has broken down. Why should an individual accept any sacrifice whatsoever if all of the profit is going to go to the billionaires who own it? If they d
80.
by harimau777 2mo ago
It would be pretty easy to determine most people's basic political alignment (e.g. party registration is public record) and therefore which side of a protest someone was on. I don't think it is likely that an authoritarian governm
81.
by harimau777 2mo ago
I get that you don't agree with it, but that quote is part of most American's understanding of our country. If the government derives its authority from the people, then that has to matter.
82.
by harimau777 2mo ago
The problem is that the safeguards will inevitably be bent, ignored, parallel constructioned, or repealed. As long as the cameras are there, they are a threat.
83.
by harimau777 2mo ago
If the warrant is a real warrant, not some rubber stamp or FISA court, then I'd have less of a problem with the Flock cameras. However, that's not how America works.
84.
by harimau777 2mo ago
If I can track your car, I can determine if you went to a protest. If I can determine if you went to a protest, then I can punish your speech.
85.
by harimau777 2mo ago
I think that a reasonable argument that tracking someone's movements can give significant insight into private communication. If you know who someone is talking to, when, where, and how often, then you can deduce a lot of what they are
86.
by harimau777 2mo ago
The constitution forbids unreasonable search and seizure. Tracking people's movements without specific reason the believe that they are a criminal has generally been regarded, at least by the public, as a classic example of government
87.
by harimau777 2mo ago
Isn't it plausable that, regardless of what is going on internally, reasoning about the LLM's behavior as though it is human would be effective? Since it is trained on human behavior.
88.
by harimau777 2mo ago
Trying to apply social shame to an LLM would be and interesting experiment! From what I've seen, it is plausible that messages that it was doing something "wrong" would cause it to at least "pretend" to behave diffe
89.
by harimau777 2mo ago
I personally think that AI is able to reason and by reasoning about its past behavior it can in some sense reflect on its experience. I don't know that I currently think that it can experience "emotions" or anything like a wo
90.
by harimau777 2mo ago
Currently, we don't know that isn't how our brain produces "consciousness". So I don't think we can say that "relationships between tokens" at a sufficient level of complexity doesn't produce consciou

More ›