31–40 of 78 posts
I am reminded somewhat of the ride & delivery apps here. While they did use tech to enable some cool things like demand pricing and efficient route planning, a big part of their innovation really came from using that tech to shovel most of the risk and cost of providing the service onto independent contractors. LLMs are a genuinely exciting technology, but I am worried that a part of what they enable will turn out to…
I am reminded somewhat of the ride & delivery apps here. While they did use tech to enable some cool things like demand pricing and efficient route planning, a big part of their innovation really came from using that tech to shovel most of the risk and cost of providing the service onto independent contractors. LLMs are a genuinely exciting technology, but I am worried that a part of what they enable will turn out to…
> If you train your AI on a bunch of someone elses work, you can make it produce something very simiilar As a blogger of 10+ years this has been very interesting to realize. I can use ChatGPT to write really good first drafts because “in the style of Swizec Teller” works as a prompt. The results are way better than the usual generic corporate drone style of output. BUT! And this is an important but. The insights it p…
Relevant Zizek: https://www.newsweek.com/slavoj-zizek-self-plagiarized-new-y...
Big media companies go fuck yourself. That nightmare scenario, for Levin, would turn a Food & Wine review into a simple text recommendation of a bottle of Malbec. If there is just one wine review on the web which recommends Malbec, AI will not start recommending it. If there are many such reviews, then yes, AI will tell you "Many reviews recommend Malbec.". Just like a human can tell you about what they learned, our…
AI is not my “brother” nor is it a human. This is a predictive model controlled by a for profit business and yea, they should be paying out if they are training on data owned by someone.
Virtually everything you "know" is because of current and past humans. Have you been paying everyone for all of that?
If you want to be a great author and you read books by great writers.. then become a successful writer, are you paying all those authors for training you?
I realize there is a difference with being able to absorb bulk data and all that- however, at the core the argument is still the same.
I am reminded somewhat of the ride & delivery apps here. While they did use tech to enable some cool things like demand pricing and efficient route planning, a big part of their innovation really came from using that tech to shovel most of the risk and cost of providing the service onto independent contractors. LLMs are a genuinely exciting technology, but I am worried that a part of what they enable will turn out to…
Acknowledging these LLMs are not human, but isn’t this kinda what humans do? Take in lots of different examples and produce something similar but distinctly different and not paying royalties or being considered plagiarism.
I am reminded somewhat of the ride & delivery apps here. While they did use tech to enable some cool things like demand pricing and efficient route planning, a big part of their innovation really came from using that tech to shovel most of the risk and cost of providing the service onto independent contractors. LLMs are a genuinely exciting technology, but I am worried that a part of what they enable will turn out to…
Acknowledging these LLMs are not human, but isn’t this kinda what humans do? Take in lots of different examples and produce something similar but distinctly different and not paying royalties or being considered plagiarism.
To give another "scale makes all the difference" analogy. Very early on when Google Maps Street View was originally released, there was debate about whether it was OK to show individuals faces. In the US at least, the argument went something like "People are out in public, they should have no expectation of privacy. If it's legal for a person to take a picture of someone else on the street (which it is in the US), why should Street View have any privacy concerns?"
The difference is that while I may expect that other people may see and even take a picture of me if I'm outside, that's different from making my picture searchable, geolocated, instantly available to billions of people across the world and online forever. And I think it's totally rational to think these 2 different situations require different approaches.
Lots of our previously common, intuitive notions of what is OK can change greatly when large scale automation enters the mix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI absolutely does not have licenses for 99%+ of the content used to build their models. They're following the standard tech company model of "negotiate forgiveness rather than ask for permission".
Yep, my understanding is that one of their datasets is basically the ebook dump of z-lib. Honestly, they're likely to get away with training on copyrighted work unless someone can get the LLMs to spit out whole pages of copyrighted material. I don't even think small excerpts would be breaking fair use
"What I want to talk about is whether we will get royalties from the elimination of all humans"
I am reminded somewhat of the ride & delivery apps here. While they did use tech to enable some cool things like demand pricing and efficient route planning, a big part of their innovation really came from using that tech to shovel most of the risk and cost of providing the service onto independent contractors. LLMs are a genuinely exciting technology, but I am worried that a part of what they enable will turn out to…
Acknowledging these LLMs are not human, but isn’t this kinda what humans do? Take in lots of different examples and produce something similar but distinctly different and not paying royalties or being considered plagiarism.
Mechanizing that process so that it can be wielded at scale and automated is a pretty significant "change to the contract", and worth exploring what compensation is fair under these new circumstances.
I am reminded somewhat of the ride & delivery apps here. While they did use tech to enable some cool things like demand pricing and efficient route planning, a big part of their innovation really came from using that tech to shovel most of the risk and cost of providing the service onto independent contractors. LLMs are a genuinely exciting technology, but I am worried that a part of what they enable will turn out to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is not my “brother” nor is it a human. This is a predictive model controlled by a for profit business and yea, they should be paying out if they are training on data owned by someone.
It is not a human but it is a fellow intelligent system. Mankind had this discussion before. When Darwin published his theory about evolution. He faced a lot of hatred because it made humans less special. Now we go through the same dance again. This time, intelligence in silicon makes humans less special.
I understand that people like to anthropomorphize things. That's harmless fun when people are imagining tree spirits or thunder gods or whatever. But just because fancy autocomplete produces semi-intelligible text does not mean there is an intelligence behind it. I believe we will eventually be able to create synthetic minds. But our understanding of actual minds is so poor that it's going to be quite a while before we manage.
More than 200 years ago, Mary Shelley told a story of a scientist creating life via the then-new technology of electricity. Since the we keep re-telling the story with the latest technology. It's a good story, and like all good art helps us understand what it means to be human. Which is why I think it's especially bad to use those stories to muddy the many differences between actual humans and something that produces statistically plausible generated text.