karpierz

16 ms·

121.
by karpierz 4y ago
Where is infinite information invoked?
122.
by karpierz 4y ago
There are countably many finite collections of symbols. There are uncountably many countable collections of symbols. Edit: The above is true if your symbols are countable. If they are uncountable, then obviously there are uncountable finite
123.
by karpierz 4y ago
There are a number of issues with your reasoning here. The main one that my previous post was getting at was (A) is not an axiom in your ethical framework; it's derived. And I think you'll find if you try and build up to (A) from
124.
by karpierz 4y ago
I don't think ethics involves consciousness either; you can't inspect other people's consciousness, so how can you put ethical weight on it? You can assume that other people are conscious like you, and so you put ethical valu
125.
by karpierz 4y ago
> Although I lean towards you on this, we don't have a definition good enough to test against, so we can't tell if it is or isn't. I don't think a definition of consciousness is possible in any objective sense, as con
126.
by karpierz 4y ago
You're saying if ChatGPT had a regularly updated search index, and was capable of effectively ranking webpages to duck around SEO (adversarial webpages looking to hack the rankings), it'd be competitive with Google? Can you explai
127.
by karpierz 4y ago
> If the AI is simply reflecting the data it was trained on and this data is a representative sample of all data, isn't it unbiased by definition? It's unbiased by definition of "does the output reflect the input"? It
128.
by karpierz 4y ago
> A t-shirt is not a digital medium so the rights holders don’t get to extend their monopolization of speech to a screen print of an unintelligible pattern of 1s and 0s. Can you point me to a ruling where this form of expression is succe
129.
by karpierz 4y ago
> What you mean is that you would prefer if Stable Diffusion was not considered fair-use by our legal system. I think you misunderstand me. Despite my feelings about Stable Diffusion and laws around copyright, I believe the law will find
130.
by karpierz 4y ago
> Let’s say that their work was left out of the training data or if it was allowed to remain that the tool never reproduced training data… is Stable Diffusion any more or any less useful? This doesn't really have much to do with cop
131.
by karpierz 4y ago
> BitTorrent itself is legal. Yes, and so is Winzip, and the code that trains Stable Diffusion. But that doesn't have much to do with the resulting data that is used and generated by those files. > There were and still are other
132.
by karpierz 4y ago
Is there a set of libraries you'd recommend in this vein?
133.
by karpierz 4y ago
> Copyright gives a monopoly on distributing copies of that image to the rights holder. Or derivative works. > not the instructions that could lead to the image, And yet torrent sites have been found to violate copyright, despite not
134.
by karpierz 4y ago
To be clear, I'm not saying that you can't create Mickey Mouse images that are transformative (or that Disney might not bother suing over; I think there'd be a lawsuit if the Simpsons tried making a commercial film following
135.
by karpierz 4y ago
> As I anticipated, you are referencing research that does not show exact copies being generated by Stable Diffusion. Do "semantically equivalent" images infringe on copyright? I would argue that they do not. We will see how th
136.
by karpierz 4y ago
> Could you provide evidence of your last statement? I haven’t seen these models produce actual copies of any art (can’t imagine that’s an option in general). Here's a whole paper, complete with citations: https://arxiv.o
137.
by karpierz 4y ago
I think we're agreed on (2) For (1), I think it's handy to think of an encrypted zip file that contains a bunch of images. If you give it a valid password, it'll give you a corresponding image. If it produces an image that vi
138.
by karpierz 4y ago
I don't think this is really a legal interpretation. If someone was distributing a password protected zip-file where if I type in "Mickey Mouse", I get a photo of Mickey Mouse, the zip file violates copyright. It doesn't
139.
by karpierz 4y ago
You're making a distinction that isn't reflected in copyright law. If I take a JPEG of Mickey Mouse and then turn it into a PNG, it's not a "copy", as the bits are different. But it still contains copyrighted materi
140.
by karpierz 4y ago
A password-protected zip file containing Mickey Mouse photos also doesn't produce copyrighted material without the right prompt. Yet, the distributor of the zip file is definitely responsible for copyright violation. And to preempt a l
141.
by karpierz 4y ago
That's fair, I should've been more precise. We can break this into (1) and (2): (1) The model is a copyright violation as it contains untransformed copyrighted material. You can show this by simply asking for a picture of Mickey M
142.
by karpierz 4y ago
Can you be more specific? I'm not sure how this affects the argument I've laid out. To be clear, my argument doesn't show that statistical generative approaches to art are violating copyright by using copyrighted data. It onl
143.
by karpierz 4y ago
Copyright requires permission to produce derivative works. If I take a picture of Mickey Mouse, add 1 to each RGB value, it would still be covered under copyright. I think the term 'learn' is doing the heavy lifting in your argume
144.
by karpierz 4y ago
If it were possible for a dating site to consistently make great matches, they wouldn't bother taint their results. Dominating the dating site market is a money printing machine, even if you're continually having to find new custo
145.
by karpierz 4y ago
> Your usage of "boomer" has not yet passed into the main stream; it is not comparable to "dumb". Hate to break it to you, but it passed into the mainstream years ago.
146.
by karpierz 4y ago
> The combination of Bing and ChatGPT, if GPT is able to digest the search data, could be amazing. How would this be different in experience than Google's existing "summary cards" that pop up?
147.
by karpierz 4y ago
I use Google regularly. It consistently answers my queries via one of the top three links it returns. What kind of questions are you having trouble answering via Google?
148.
by karpierz 4y ago
Those are terrible results. None of them are in (and most of them aren't even near) Gastown, one doesn't exist, one isn't a restaurant or vegetarian. - The Acorn: Not in Gastown. In South Main. - The Naam: Not in Gastown. In
149.
by karpierz 4y ago
I'm seeing a lot of responses that see ChatGPT replacing Google, and it's unclear to me how? It can replace queries like "what's the tallest mountain in France", but that's not really a profitable query for Goo
150.
by karpierz 4y ago
To quote the article: > whenever i harsh Buddhism's vibe, some fucker brings me a "well actually Buddhists believe the opposite of that", which is way too easy given what i have now decided is the Third Law of Buddhism: &g

More ›