301–309 of 309 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's so mind blowing to me that it made it past corporate legal. I don't get what defense there could be besides "lmao try and stop me, nerds"
Fair use is basically the whole defense.
What about the part where a Meta employee used Meta computers to download copies of the books?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he says he didn't do something, the pitchfork mob will simply tell each other that he is lying. They will do this in the most confused and twisted way possible, driven by lack of understanding of what was happening combined with a need to drive outrage and thereby advertise their work. If he says he didn't intend to do that thing, this is still compatible with a later update that he didn't do that thing, but immed…
The best response, for us all collectively, is to always ignore everyone's opinion online. There is zero value in anything on reddit, twitter, facebook, the media these days. Just ignore it. All of it. Outrage or not. I see downvotes, but I mean it. You know who you listen to? Your friends. Your neighbours. Your local community. You listen to PEOPLE, not sockpuppets. You listen to legitimate human beings, not AI gene…
Many here don't agree, but I wonder if their attention to the beautiful divide between people has been obscured by groupthink.
4Chan /b/ is such a toxic community that I never spent long there without remembering the words that reflect its value at the top. >The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the authors are concerned about how the dataset could be or is likely to be used from now on. The service in question wasn't introducing anything new that'd appear to justify all the recent pushback. It feels like you continue generalizing your statements, while the discussion topic is about what made Prosecraft specifically so preposterous that it warranted the outrage. > their argument doesn't have to be a peer-r…
as I said earlier "6 years passed" since 2017 and the arrival of A.I. is causing authors (to say the least) real concern. the industry/ecosystem around X is enough to change to affect those associated with X. you offered a "pet theory" (as you say) further up, but not much by way of proof that their fear is irrational. i think we've reached in impasse here, the points are re-cycling.
I think that you keep trying to generalize this argument because there's nothing that's strongly damning about Prosecraft. If these authors have a concern in regards to newer AI tech, they should address these concerns to services that actually implement that tech, not a tool that has peacefully existed for years and is guilty of nothing but being vaguely associated with these newer developments. It's like if Ford released a new car that could go 1000km/h, and then I, in protest of its obvious lack of safety, go to a museum and smash up a Model T. If that's not irrational, I don't know what would be.
> you offered a "pet theory" (as you say) further up, but not much by way of proof that their fear is irrational.
There's no concrete proof because I didn't find anything that I could even try to disprove. If you read through the anti-Prosecraft posts, they lack substance in bringing up how exactly this service can financially harm authors. The only complaint seems to be that the authors don't want it - even though the use of their works appears legal and is perfectly consistent with what many other services have done in the past. Thus, my only conclusion was that at least some of the hate stemmed from Prosecraft just being vaguely "something with AI".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This means that OpenAI should be sued every single time someone manages to extract what is considered as copyrighted material from their software. I agree! If GPT4 is outputting copyrighted material beyond what is considered fair-use (i.e. substantively more than what is provided by say, google books), I agree that is copyright infringement. Indeed it is about the output, and making stuff available that people woul…
That actually brings another point: if you train LLMs on scientific papers, at least in some domains it will make it easier to write a lot of papers. I am not an academic, but it is already my impression that there are a lot of low-quality papers out there. What if now many more get generated by LLMs? Won't that be a problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When an actual human author mimics other writers styles, it is not illegal, why exactly should it be illegal for an author to use an LLM to do it? There is a fundamental difference of scale. Say I write a blog post about some technical thing I know. You read it, learn from it (and other sources), and then you write your own blog post with your understanding. You may link to my post (if you believe it is heavily ins…
I do not disagree with any of what you wrote. That is also an entirely different line of reasoning than your first argument. That said, LLMs today, cannot do this in a meaningful way. If an author cannot write a better book than ChatGPT, then that author would not be able to live of their writing anyway. And the authors that use ChatGPT to write a book, but still put the effort into fine tuning it, will not be able t…
> Let's assume that in 10 years, LLMs are at the point where you cannot distinguish between a well written book by an author and one generated by entirely by an AI. Suppose we have two authors, one that is long dead and whos works are public domain and a young one that is just starting. An LLM trained on the author whos work is in the public domain can generate books that is just like the original works. But what if the young author writes in a similar way, is that now legal or illegal to generate the same content? It's impossible to know if the young authors work have been used for training.
which is central to my reasoning. You could go the same way as software patents, but that is not preferable in any way.
---
>> I am certain that trying to ban LLMs, or dictating what and how is not the answer.
> I wouldn't ban LLMs because of copyright issues, though I would let authors choose whether their IP can be used for training or not.
> Why not? Just say that using for training is considered derivative work, and that's it. Now copyright owners just have to update their license to allow for training if they want to, and that's solved. Of course, Big Tech makes less money from that scenario.
Big Tech can train on everything that is "legal" and malicious actors can finetune with a specific authors works and then generate books. You will not be able to detect that and the malicious actor can claim to have written it themself. Then we're back to the starting point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People starved while it was suggested they eat cake. Not sure how that relates - are the rights around art crit not the same as AI crit?
Of course they never were suggested to eat cake in reality. 1) The actual French quote was to brioche, a type of bread and mistranslated as cake because brioche wasn't common in English-speaking countries 2) Was never an actual suggestion -- the French philosopher Rousseau was making a sarcastic remark suggesting that if the people didn't have bread, they should eat brioche (a fancier kind of bread) instead. But for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similarly, saying that something is not true does not necessarily make it not true.
Yes, that's why I provided the very clear example of passive voice.
I just think it's really funny that a third or so of the article is the author struggling to figure out why this would be useful to anyone. > scanned and analyzed a whole bunch of books and would let you call up really useful data on books. [...] Frankly, all of that sounds amazing. And amazingly useful. Even more amazing is that he built it, and it worked. It would produce useful analysis of books. > This is all qui…
Imagine seeing the trends in books throughout certain time period, wars, etc. Or larger trends over the history of all written works. Or all kinds of other neat and useful information that can impact decisions we make today. Do you think all analysis of things you aren't personally interested in is useless?
I don't think a person without interest in literary analysis would make this comment. On the contrary, I'm specifically calling out building non-sensical tools with little practical uses because the author of the tool does not engage with literary works beyond the most superficial layer. And because I don't believe quantitive analysis of art is benificial to culture and society, but that's a broader subject.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It is not their job to learn how the black box works If you have not learned the basics of how something works, you have no right for your opinion on it to be considered valid. Period. Invalid opinions do harm to democracy and endanger our way of life.
> you have no right for your opinion on it to be considered valid. Period. That is so wrong it is actually dangerous. Do I need to understand how a nuclear bomb works for my opinion on it to be considered valid? Obviously not. I only need to understand the consequences of it. It does not matter at all how it works, if I am against the fact that it will kill a whole lot of people. > Invalid opinions do harm to democra…