661–670 of 1001 posts
Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.
Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.
A lot of people here aren't going to like it, but the only reasonable way out I can see is to eventually socialise ownership and control of AI. I don't see an alternative that isn't really bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arent't the models trained on open source code though? In which case OpenAI et al should be following the licenses of the code on which they are trained.
Yup, but contributors to OSS have generally given away thier rights by contributing to the project per the license. So stealing from OS isnt as bad as stealing material still totally owned by an individual, such as a drawing scraped from a personal website. From a common FOSS contributor license... >>permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documenta…
Stealing from FOSS is awful, because it completely violates the social contract under which that code was shared.
Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.
A lot of people here aren't going to like it, but the only reasonable way out I can see is to eventually socialise ownership and control of AI. I don't see an alternative that isn't really bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people here aren't going to like it, but the only reasonable way out I can see is to eventually socialise ownership and control of AI. I don't see an alternative that isn't really bad.
I figure capitalism may soon become obsolete. But I don’t think this speculation is going to make for interesting discussion on here. I find the technical discussion more interesting and could do without some of the moral grandstanding in the comments.
Every cent you spend on this, remember: The people who made this possible are not even getting a millionth of a cent for every billion USD made with it (they are getting nothing). Same with code; that code you spent years pouring over, fixing, etc. is now how these companies make so much money and get so much investment. It's like open source, except you get shafted.
If I see art and get inspired by it, then paint my own thing and make millions do I owe my inspiration money?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand LLMs are getting very good at understanding poorly constructed instructions as well. So being able to express oneself clearly in a structured way may not be such an edge.
Yes, I agree, but as one of the other comments say, they are not able to read your mind. So even if the structure and style is not clear, you must be able to express what you want.
For example long unstructured rambling might turn out to be a non-issue, while as human I would rank such message low no matter how good it is in other informational aspects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The environmental cost is significantly overblown, especially water usage.
I work with direct liquid cooled systems. If the datacenter is working with open DLC systems (most AI datacenters in the US in fact do), there's a lot of water is being wasted, 7/24/365. A mid-tier top-500 system (think about #250-#325) consumes about a 0.75MW of energy. AI data centers consume magnitudes more. To cool that behemoth you need to pump tons of water per minute in the inner loop. Outer loop might be slow…
The cost to humans living in affected areas was massive and high profile, but it’s very questionable if it was higher than that of an equivalent amount of coal-burning plants. Fortunately not a tradeoff we have to debate anymore, since there are renewables with much fewer downsides and externalities still.
Nuclear bombs (at least those being actually used) by design kill people, so I’m not sure what the externalities even are if the main utility is already to intentionally cause harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you put stuff on the internet, people (and machines) can see it. How do you think human artists learn? By looking at other people's artwork. AI can do exactly the same thing. As for code: All of my code is open source. I don't care if people (or machines) learn from it. In fact, as a teacher, I sincerely hope that they do! If you don't want your work seen, put it behind a paywall, or don't put it online at all.
Not a fair comparison... A model can ingest a countless number works in day and reproduce stylistic fingerprints on demand, at zero marginal cost. How are the people it learned from meant to compete with that? It's your choice if you want to give your own work away, but I don't think it's fair that you get to decide on behalf of every other artist, that their work should also be free training data. Do you want all mu…
You could say the same thing about the internet itself - zero marginal cost to view something versus pre-internet.
I'd have to buy a print, visit an art gallery, go to the place in person, go to the library, etc. That's all friction and cost to "ingest" art. Some of it costs something and some just the cost of going.