If assembling original work from the cumulative experience of other works is theft, I'v got some bad news for the author of this article.
ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
51–60 of 168 posts
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a new observation: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9
Is this also an argument for determinism in the Bible? I'm guessing not because that would somewhat goes against some of the bigger messaging.
No, it's a reminder that when people think their ideas or circumstances are truly novel they are mistaken.
It's the same as the "wheel of tech" analogy.
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
1 year.
Zero seconds. IP protections are theft of future creativity, and a form of regulatory capture. If your idea is so groundbreaking that it can be reimplemented by someone else within a day, then maybe it wasn't actually so groundbreaking in the first place. And in practice the only rightsholders who benefit from enforcement of these "protections" are those who can afford to litigate them. Thus, it's a form of regulator…
> If your idea is so groundbreaking that it can be reimplemented by someone else within a day, then maybe it wasn't actually so groundbreaking
I think that's conflating complexity with "groundbreakingness." If the litmus is "reimplemented within a day," well, I can't think of many invention that _can't_ be.
Take doorknobs for example (with the obvious counterpoint being that it's perhaps better to live in a world where doorknobs aren't patented as soon as they're invented).
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would that be a copyright violation? Quite possibly, it depends on what specifically is meant by style and the degree to which the new work is transformative.
How about Tonya Grotter, the Russian Harry Potter? https://www.amazon.com/Tanya-Grotter-i-pensne-Noya/dp/569984... You can’t copyright the idea of a wizardry school for preteens. You can’t copyright a style. You can definitely trademark your own name.
Edit: It was judged as copyright infringement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter
A wizardry school for preteens isn’t on its own particularly unusual. But the question becomes how similar would the works be if the original was never published. You aren’t in the clear of a few paragraph book summery would apply equally well to both works. Barring the normal exceptions, Spaceballs is making reference to other works not just imitating them.
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
1 year.
Zero seconds. IP protections are theft of future creativity, and a form of regulatory capture. If your idea is so groundbreaking that it can be reimplemented by someone else within a day, then maybe it wasn't actually so groundbreaking in the first place. And in practice the only rightsholders who benefit from enforcement of these "protections" are those who can afford to litigate them. Thus, it's a form of regulator…
If there is no IP protection, it is illogical to invest money in new materials R&D or medicines.
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a new observation: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9
Is this also an argument for determinism in the Bible? I'm guessing not because that would somewhat goes against some of the bigger messaging.
There have been plenty of deterministic interpretations of the Bible, the Calvinists being the first that pops to mind!
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#57I feel obliged to say that piracy is not theft... but more relevantly, I like how AI is showing us more clearly that everything is essentially a derivative work.
Derivative, yes, but also incremental huge steps sometimes,
Things like airplanes, lasers, nukes..
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#58I think one cool benefit of AI advances will be, that many more ordinary people will start thinking about philosophical problems such as the one posed in this article. What is the meaningful difference between something truly being learned, and mere "copying" of "tiny pieces of material" that have been observed in the past? Could learning exist in a vacuum universe, with nothing to copy? Is there any LLM output that…
For me the most concerning thing about the ChatGPT hype has been seeing how difficult people seem to find reasoning about the risks and abilities of these systems.
Questions around the emergent properties, sentience and creativity of AI systems should rarely be discussed as black and whites.
I don't think ChatGPT is sentient, but is it more sentient than a rock? I mean, maybe? At least I would be wrong to say a hard no to that. Similarly questions around the ability of LLMs to reason or produce original work probably isn't black or white either. LLMs do seem to show some signs of basic reasoning ability and have shown they are able to produce unique works, but clearly there are limits to both.
Perhaps this isn't unique to AI though. A "bad" artist is arguably one that is too heavily influenced by another and lacks artistic creativity. But does that mean what they do has no creativity? I think not, but that often is the black and white language people will use.
It seems to me ChatGPT is neither stealing or doing something all that creative.
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#59These kinds of arguments don’t convince me at all. Show me how it is completely different from what humans do. We regularly put everything we know through the blender to come up with new “creative” artifacts.
It doesn’t matter if the mechanic is identical or not.
Think about handing a friend a thumb drive full of music versus downloading the same files from Napster.
One of those activities can be sued out of existence.
Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft
#60I feel obliged to say that piracy is not theft... but more relevantly, I like how AI is showing us more clearly that everything is essentially a derivative work.
Not a new observation: "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9
Those Babylonian phones were wild. Too bad they'd only run 2 hours on a blood sacrifice though.