Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

americamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–168 of 168 posts

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#161

Post by fennecfoxy »

Lmao, why is our species so oblivious. The author: "these programs are not sentient but just a very complex form of the kind of predictive text bot" as if that isn't exactly what his brain is doing as he writes that article, regurgitating concept and ways of describing and writing things that he's learnt over time.

He speaks so confidently as if humans don't learn our language from each other, that's literally the point of language, oh my god.

"we have seen an explosion" oh damn bro, referring to a massive increase in something as an "explosion" has been said a trillion times before, better give credit to the first person who ever said it.

Besides the fact, GPTs like us silly humans have learnt language from source material, but I've found GPTs can still come up with their own concepts/ideas, asking it to come up with a unique simile or metaphor works.

I did an adventure roleplay with Rocket Raccoon (yeah, yeah I know) and it came up with "With our next destination set amidst the asteroid fields, the vastness of space becomes our canvas, ready for exploration" creating an allegory for our adventures in space as if we are artists "painting our adventures onto the canvas of reality". Idk but I thought it was cool.

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#162

Post by fennecfoxy »

fouric wrote: post #103
chii wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they aren't arguing about language semantics. The argument (which, i don't buy) is that the training data set is deriving benefit without paying money back to the original creator of the data. But the only change now is speed - after all, education has always been possible from said data from the internet, free of royalties. These creators have not asked for a return, so what makes training an AI any different?

> These creators have not asked for a return, so what makes training an AI any different? Is every work in the training set licensed in a way that allows modification and redistribution?

As long as it's not regurgitating it wholly then why is there a need for a license?

If someone uses the phrase "and with that there's a tremendous implicit shift" for the first time in a copyright text, then after having read that my brain regurgitates it as I'm writing my own text, and I include that phrase. Is that plagiarism? Because it would be a ridiculous precedent to be honest, regurgitation is most of what our species does.

I feel like, as other have pointed out, modern models learn in roughly the same way we do (but with very limited scope) and that idk, it's a shock to people that we do the same things as these models do? But because it's a model doing it and not a person it's intrinsically bad or something

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#163

Post by fennecfoxy »

pier25 wrote: post #80
amanaplanacanal wrote: post #28

These 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.

Well a big difference is you cannot have a single human consume and remember everything ever written. Another big difference is that that human cannot be scaled so that it can chat with millions of people at the same time. Concentrating all knowledge into a single entity controlled by a for profit corporation using opaque methods will have consequences. Doesn't really matter if it's a biological or digital entity.

What if the AI is its own entity and not affiliated with a company/corporate? I feel like we very quickly start to approach "well humans can do this thing, but stinky AI is better at it so we should restrict AIs, they don't have the same rights as we do" something our species has historically been quite good at. I guess history does repeat itself, hmm.

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#164

Post by fennecfoxy »

drooby wrote: post #14

No one owns basic shapes. You can claim ownership to the complex geometry of your work - and that’s it. The exact complexity of said geometry is impossible to define - you’ll know it when you see it.

Enter Apple (https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/08/apple_rectangle_round....)

"Surprise, motherf!"

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#165

Post by fennecfoxy »

naet wrote: post #20
uvnq wrote: post #5

Using 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…

I think this is a fallacy that I see a lot in recent AI discussions. An LLM is not the same as a human brain. You might see some superficial similarities in both being able to produce a block of text, but the method by which the text is produced is entirely different. For example, we can't download entire libraries of books instantly to our brains and then reproduce those books word for word in memory. Things that op…

Another humans are special and different argument.

Consider an inevitable AGI with autonomy and no ties to a corporate. Can it not learn and write text whether in conversation, creatively or academically? If it's held to the same copyright laws that humans are then of course it's fine, in my mind. Hell, AI will be _better_ at avoiding infringing on others as they can store so much knowledge and process new knowledge (searching the internet for similar works) than humans are at infringing.

If this is still a problem then doesn't this just boil down to racism against the machine?

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#166

Post by fennecfoxy »

gumballindie wrote: post #6
uvnq wrote: post #5

Using 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 isn't now, but as we approach an inevitable singularity, whether it's in 100 years or 1000 years, what then?

Are we gonna fall prey to the scifi trope of "let's all be racist to machines", if so then I wouldn't hold it against AGIs to fall prey to the scifi trope of "I am gonna b evil now, bye bye humans".

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#167

Post by smitty1e »

williamcotton wrote: post #56
mikeyjk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_in_Calvinism

Right, but if one rides Calvin all the way out, then most of the Gospel gets kinda bizarre.

Re: ChatGPT is not ‘artificial intelligence.’ It’s theft

#168

Post by fouric »

fennecfoxy wrote: post #162
fouric wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These creators have not asked for a return, so what makes training an AI any different? Is every work in the training set licensed in a way that allows modification and redistribution?

As long as it's not regurgitating it wholly then why is there a need for a license? If someone uses the phrase "and with that there's a tremendous implicit shift" for the first time in a copyright text, then after having read that my brain regurgitates it as I'm writing my own text, and I include that phrase. Is that plagiarism? Because it would be a ridiculous precedent to be honest, regurgitation is most of what ou…

See my below comment, which covers:

> As long as it's not regurgitating it wholly

...because (1) we currently have no guarantees that a model won't regurgitate it wholly (or enough that it's infringing according to the law and/or common sense) and (2) because the model itself is either (a) modification and redistribution of the content (in which case it violates those licenses) or (b) some new act not covered by existing copyright law, in which case the authors haven't consented to it because the licenses they've distributed their content under only cover the modification and redistribution cases.

> regurgitation is most of what our species does

Sure, there's a continuous spectrum from repeating a single new word ("jank") to a whole book - and one is clearly copyright infringement, and the other isn't - but you still have to acknowledge that partial reproductions of an artistic works can still be owned by the author. A single chapter of Harry Potter is still owned by J.K. Rowling.

> But because it's a model doing it and not a person it's intrinsically bad or something

You act like it's somehow not obvious that a model is not a person, and vastly different sets of moral codes and legal rules apply to each.

Post reply on HN