231–240 of 405 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that all news outlet that rewords the news of other news outlet are doing copyright infringement ?
The underlying fact is of course not copyrightable. But for example merely translating a news article to another language would be a derived work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're describing sounds like a search and replace could already do it. If you mean something more transformative, did Yudkowsky get a licence for HPMOR? Did Pratchett (he might well have) get a licence from Niven to retell Ringworld as Strata? I don't know how true it is, but it's widely repeated that 50 Shades of Grey was originally a fan fiction of the Twilight series. Etc., but note that I'm not saying "no".
I think that there is a strong argument that to be truly transformative (in a copyright moral/legal sense), the work must have been altered by human hands/mind , not purely or mainly by an automated process. So find/replace and AI is out, but reinterpreting and reformulating by human endeavour is in. I do wonder whether that will become accepted case law, assuming something like that is argued in the NYT suit.
“Bathed in the soft hues of twilight, the sleek feline, with its fur a tapestry of midnight shades, beheld an approaching canine companion. A symphony of amber streetlights cast gentle poles of warmth upon the cobblestone path, as the cat’s entered eyes, glinting with subtle mischief, looked into the form of the oncoming dog- a creature of boundless enthusiasm and a coat adorned with a kaleidoscope of earth tones”
Since an AI has produced the latter from the former, there is no meaningful transformation.
I find it unhelpful that several different ideas are covered under the blanket term of AI safety. - There is AI safety in terms of producing "safe", politically correct outputs, no porn, etc. - There is AI safety in terms of mass society/election manipulation. - There is AI safety in terms of strong AI that kills us all a la Eliezer Yudkowsky. I feel like these three have very little in common and it makes all debate…
There is a bigger reason why the end of open source AI might be close: as soon as training data becomes licensed, that’s it for open source AI. Poof. I wish I could be more eloquent on this point, but I’ve mostly just been depressed about this seeming inevitability. Hopefully it won’t be the case. But how could it be otherwise? Hundreds of thousands of people are mad at openai and midjourney for doing exactly what op…
> There is a bigger reason why the end of open source AI might be close: as soon as training data becomes licensed, that’s it for open source AI. Poof. In the West, maybe. I doubt it'll slow down open source AI development pace in places like China.
Never underestimate the desire of existing systems of control or power to self-propagate.
Yeah, as the post shows, we're well aware of these systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the good arguments? Here are the only credible ones I've seen, that are actually somewhat based on reality: * It will lead to widespread job loss, especially on the creative industries Rest is purely out of someones imagination.
It can cause profound deception and even more "loss of truth". If AI only impacted creatives I don't think anyone would care nearly as much. It's that it can fabricate things wholesale at volumes unheard of. It's that people can use that ability to flood the discourse with bullshit.
I think that ship has already sailed. This is already being done, and we don't need AI for that either. Modern media is doing a pretty good job right now.
Of course, it's going to get worse.
AI safety people are hypocrites. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be calling for all AI to be banned, ala Dune. There are AI harms that don't care about whether or not the weights are available, and are playing out today. I'm talking about the ability of any AI system to obfuscate plagiarism[0] and spam the Internet with technically distinct rewords of the same text. This is currently the most lucrative u…
> AI safety people are hypocrites. If they practiced what they preached, they'd be calling for all AI to be banned They are calling for all AI (above a certain capability level) to be banned. Not just open, not just closed, all . There are risks that apply only to open. There are risks that apply only to closed. But nobody should be developing AGI without incredibly robustly proven alignment, open or closed, any more…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US could unilaterally impose this by allowing the bounties to be charged even on people who aren't US citizens. Evil people do exist in the world, who would be happy to get in on that action. Or one could use honey instead of vinegar: Offer a fast track to US citizenship to any proven AI expert who agrees to move and renounce the trade for good. Personally I think this goal is much more likely to work. It's all a…
This could have a counter-intuitive impact. Incentivizing people to become AI experts as a means to US citizenship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
I find it unhelpful that several different ideas are covered under the blanket term of AI safety. - There is AI safety in terms of producing "safe", politically correct outputs, no porn, etc. - There is AI safety in terms of mass society/election manipulation. - There is AI safety in terms of strong AI that kills us all a la Eliezer Yudkowsky. I feel like these three have very little in common and it makes all debate…
Also AI safety in terms of protecting corporation profits (regulatory capture).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that there is a strong argument that to be truly transformative (in a copyright moral/legal sense), the work must have been altered by human hands/mind , not purely or mainly by an automated process. So find/replace and AI is out, but reinterpreting and reformulating by human endeavour is in. I do wonder whether that will become accepted case law, assuming something like that is argued in the NYT suit.
“The cat saw the dog” “Bathed in the soft hues of twilight, the sleek feline, with its fur a tapestry of midnight shades, beheld an approaching canine companion. A symphony of amber streetlights cast gentle poles of warmth upon the cobblestone path, as the cat’s entered eyes, glinting with subtle mischief, looked into the form of the oncoming dog- a creature of boundless enthusiasm and a coat adorned with a kaleidosc…
In law, in the eyes of those that want AI to "win", or in the eyes of those who want AI to "lose"? For all three can be different. (Now I'm remembering a Babylon 5 quote: "Understanding is a three-edged sword: your side, their side, and the truth.")