ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
americamagazine.org
ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
1–10 of 168 posts
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#2Poor artist borrow, great artist steal.
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#3We need an "Atlas Shrugged" scenario against AI.
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#4It doesn't chop text content into bits and reproduce it, that's absurd. It's a text prediction engine, it predicts what tokens come next based on some context
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#5Using this logic, every writer who has learned to read and write by reading books, or every artist who improved their craft by studying works, or every musician who learned the piano by practicing pieces, is also "stealing" in whatever they "originally" create due to learning via pattern recognition "tiny pieces of every work" in their data set. It's ridiculous to compare agents that generalize well to "stealing" pieces of the works they used to learn the generalizations. Obviously if an artist memorizes a painting in their data set and reproduces it, or an AI spits out the exact image instead of original works based on what it has learned, then that is theft. But generalization is not theft. At least in my view. To assume otherwise leads to some very dysfunctional logical conclusions
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#6Using this logic, every writer who has learned to read and write by reading books, or every artist who improved their craft by studying works, or every musician who learned the piano by practicing pieces, is also "stealing" in whatever they "originally" create due to learning via pattern recognition "tiny pieces of every work" in their data set. It's ridiculous to compare agents that generalize well to "stealing" pie…
AI is not writers artists or developers, it’s software that ingests data and generates an output. Anthropomorphism is going out of fashion fast.
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#7The five trillion finger discount.
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#8How is it that LLMs launder consciousness but don't launder ownership?
The author's main point seems to be that bits are colored[1], and that the process of LLM training doesn't "bleach models". In other words, ownership persists through training in a way that generated text mixes ownership rather than creating a new, ownable, artifact.
They also seem to have (extrapolating the theme) a concept of "smelly" bits. "They can also communicate with a person in a way that resembles actual conversation." ie: words have a "conscious"[smelly] category imbued upon them if they were generated by human or "unconscious"[unscented] if computer generated them.
This evokes a sense that "while they use words and form sentences like conscious people, they can't hold a conversation." Furthermore, this seems to be stated as an ontological fact, rather than say a derived and grounded in behavior such as, "They aren't currently capable of holding conversation because the output distribution doesn't match output distributions of human conversations."
These two views, that models don't bleach but they preserve smell, are fundamentally incompatible and diametrically opposed. How is it that color[ownership] persists through model training, but smell[consciousness] does not? We don't know - the author doesn't say. Jim just states both as fact without grounding either in rationale or justification.
Sure, we can take them as axiomatic, but then what's the point of the article then? There's a reoccurring disappointment in property/consciousness articles from tech-types who write on ownership and consciousness really aren't adding anything creative to the conversation. This is an extremely basic critique of the piece that the author should have thought through before hitting the publish button.
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#9Using this logic, every writer who has learned to read and write by reading books, or every artist who improved their craft by studying works, or every musician who learned the piano by practicing pieces, is also "stealing" in whatever they "originally" create due to learning via pattern recognition "tiny pieces of every work" in their data set. It's ridiculous to compare agents that generalize well to "stealing" pie…
AI is not writers artists or developers, it’s software that ingests data and generates an output. Anthropomorphism is going out of fashion fast.
It's not anthropomorphism. They are both generalizing agents. It is an accurate and meaningful comparison.
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#10Using this logic, every writer who has learned to read and write by reading books, or every artist who improved their craft by studying works, or every musician who learned the piano by practicing pieces, is also "stealing" in whatever they "originally" create due to learning via pattern recognition "tiny pieces of every work" in their data set. It's ridiculous to compare agents that generalize well to "stealing" pie…
AI is not writers artists or developers, it’s software that ingests data and generates an output. Anthropomorphism is going out of fashion fast.
Before we can agree on anything, we have to define what qualifies a human as any of those things. We will be here all night debating that.
- "They call themselves an artist but they are not that good." - "Copying and pasting shell scripts in a terminal does not a software developer make." - "The story that writer created is yet another permutation of "
You see what I mean? There is a good probability that today alone a significant percentage of content you saw online was AI generated and you were non-the-wiser and thought nothing of it.