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

The AI Hate Progression

xodium.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 201 posts

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#101

Post by dvt »

spacechild1 wrote: post #94
dvt wrote: post #31

> At some point, the entire tech industry saw ChatGPT and fell into a collective psychosis and decided that this, this is the next big thing, and that we must pull out the stops to ensure the prophecy is fulfilled of generative AI/LLMs becoming the next big thing. This is extremely disingenuous, ChatGPT was the fastest-growing consumer product for a reason. Part hype, part usefulness, part novelty. The main problem I…

IMO the author absolutely nails it. Yes, it might not be the most nuanced take, but they express what many of us are thinking. > Google and Yahoo and even DDG have been using copyrighted data for a quarter century, if not longer. Your argument boils down to: companies haven't respected copyright or user consent for a long time, so why should we now care? The answer is: it was wrong back then and it is still wrong now…

> Your argument boils down to: companies haven't respected copyright or user consent for a long time, so why should we now care?

This is not a very charitable take. My argument is: that cat is out of the bag, so what do we do next? Do you have a plan? Ranting about consent or privacy or copyright won't somehow untrain these models. At least the math people put out the pretty sensible Leiden Declaration[1].

> Don't you see a problem with that? Why should we not care?

This is a lot like saying "do you not see a problem with nuclear weapons? They can wipe out humanity!"—I mean, yeah, sure I do, but ranting about the technology won't somehow put that cat back in the bag, either.

[1] https://leidendeclaration.ai/

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#102

Post by dvt »

jolmg wrote: post #99
munk-a wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there really is a fair difference between pure indexing and reoffering. I also don't think the way Google currently operates is still anywhere close to pure indexing - programs of theirs like amp and the news tab specifically deny sites visitors instead of their site serving as a visibility boost. I am sure there are people who'd object to even being indexed but most niche communities were pretty rabid about…

> I think there really is a fair difference between pure indexing and reoffering. Following the same logic, is there a fair difference between pure training and reoffering? > I am sure there are people who'd object to even being indexed but most niche communities were pretty rabid about getting more visibility to find more members. Here the logic seems to be: it's OK as long as they derive some kind of benefit from i…

> Following the same logic, is there a fair difference between pure training and reoffering?

This is the kind of hair-splitting that I was trying to avoid (because, at the end of the day, there is no functional difference, is md5 okay, maybe Markov chains, just a very simple one-layer perceptron?). Once you take someone's copyrighted work and you do anything with it without consent, you're breaking some implicit trust.

However, obviously there's a lot of tension here: free speech. transformed works, copyright owners, profit making, etc., etc. That's why I don't think it's really that important to exactly figure out what consent was broken and when, but rather it's important to be forward-looking and plan for what might come next.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#103

Post by atleastoptimal »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #95
atleastoptimal wrote: post #66

It's funny how worked up people get about copyright with respect to to AI training when using copyrighted material for training an AI model is fair use. We have a concept of fair use in copyright because economic growth is essentially tied to the free proliferation of information. I can't really trust any anti-AI argument when it feels more of a tribal grievance than a rational explanation of concern. Especially with…

> It's funny how worked up people get about copyright with respect to to AI training when using copyrighted material for training an AI model is fair use Personally I disagree with the finding that it is fair use. I think the fact that it was found to be fair use is a miscarriage of justice. Am I allowed to have dissenting opinions on that topic?

Yes of course, but why do you believe it's not fair use?

The essence of fair use is that it is ok if the use of the copyrighted material is transformative. LLM training I believe is transformative, as it is taking the data (as in a work of text, an image, video), and feeding it through the layers of a neural net to marginally update its weights. It is factoring each work into a very very small fraction of the model's overall sense of the world.

Now, AI models are capable of reproducing copyrighted works to a degree of high accuracy, especially if those works recur very frequently in the training data, but I believe that's a different issue. Any video camera is capable of taking a photo of a copyrighted work, but that isn't essential to the value of the camera, though it is undeniably what certain cameras are used for. The exact reproduction of copyrighted works is a likewise something that LLM's can do, as any intelligent person could recite song lyrics or a work if they memorized it, but each individual work is only marginal to the overall effectiveness and value proposition of the model.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#104

Post by colechristensen »

pesus wrote: post #58
colechristensen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's zealotry all over the place and here's your prime example of a new kind. It's just not necessary to be this upset about machine learning. There were people that were this upset about electricity too. It's not going away, your anger isn't going to help you or anyone else. People have been pushing out low quality everything for a long time, technology is making that more efficient. It's an old story being retol…

> There is no reason for not liking something to breed this much hate and division. Other than the fact that the tool itself is being used to spread actual hate and division, and is currently destroying the fabric of society. Dismissive and condescending comments like this also only serve to further push people away from AI. Writing it off as someone just not liking something new does not make the actual issues go aw…

The hate and division is the problem, not the subject. Regardless if the subject of hate.

It's not that important, the hate won't make it go away.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#105

Post by colechristensen »

recursive wrote: post #65
colechristensen wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's zealotry all over the place and here's your prime example of a new kind. It's just not necessary to be this upset about machine learning. There were people that were this upset about electricity too. It's not going away, your anger isn't going to help you or anyone else. People have been pushing out low quality everything for a long time, technology is making that more efficient. It's an old story being retol…

Meat isn't going away. Your vegetarianism isn't helping anyone.

I feel the same way about vegetarians. I don't care what you choose to not eat. If you go around spreading hate for people that don't make the same choice and break up relationships over other people not making the same choice as you, there I have a problem.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#106

Post by jolmg »

dvt wrote: post #102
jolmg wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think there really is a fair difference between pure indexing and reoffering. Following the same logic, is there a fair difference between pure training and reoffering? > I am sure there are people who'd object to even being indexed but most niche communities were pretty rabid about getting more visibility to find more members. Here the logic seems to be: it's OK as long as they derive some kind of benefit from i…

> Following the same logic, is there a fair difference between pure training and reoffering? This is the kind of hair-splitting that I was trying to avoid (because, at the end of the day, there is no functional difference, is md5 okay, maybe Markov chains, just a very simple one-layer perceptron?). Once you take someone's copyrighted work and you do anything with it without consent, you're breaking some implicit trus…

I was defending your point. Google's indexing was a valid parallel.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#107

Post by dvt »

jolmg wrote: post #106
dvt wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Following the same logic, is there a fair difference between pure training and reoffering? This is the kind of hair-splitting that I was trying to avoid (because, at the end of the day, there is no functional difference, is md5 okay, maybe Markov chains, just a very simple one-layer perceptron?). Once you take someone's copyrighted work and you do anything with it without consent, you're breaking some implicit trus…

I was defending your point. Google's indexing was a valid parallel.

I saw, I'm just re-emphasizing/clarifying.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#108

Post by bluefirebrand »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #103
bluefirebrand wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's funny how worked up people get about copyright with respect to to AI training when using copyrighted material for training an AI model is fair use Personally I disagree with the finding that it is fair use. I think the fact that it was found to be fair use is a miscarriage of justice. Am I allowed to have dissenting opinions on that topic?

Yes of course, but why do you believe it's not fair use? The essence of fair use is that it is ok if the use of the copyrighted material is transformative. LLM training I believe is transformative, as it is taking the data (as in a work of text, an image, video), and feeding it through the layers of a neural net to marginally update its weights. It is factoring each work into a very very small fraction of the model's…

> Now, AI models are capable of reproducing copyrighted works to a degree of high accuracy, especially if those works recur very frequently in the training data, but I believe that's a different issue

I disagree. I think it is the exact issue. I think that treating it as a different issue is legal stickhandling that goes against the spirit of what fair use is intended to be, to get the outcome that the rich and powerful want.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#109

Post by scarmig »

spacechild1 wrote: post #100
scarmig wrote: post #70

No one is "forcing" you to use AI. If you don't like it, then... Don't use it. And if you're right that it's all a bunch of cryptobro NFT lies that offers nothing to the world, you'll be fine and well-positioned once it goes away.

Even if you don't use AI, you still have to deal with all the other people who do.

So, the reasoning goes, I don't consent to other people using AI, therefore when you do you are violating me?

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#110

Post by hectdev »

pesus wrote: post #74
recursive wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why "irrationally"? Nothing seems irrational here.

It allows them to dismiss anyone who doesn't buy into what they're selling without any actual effort and maintain a superiority complex at the same time. A common tactic these days for all sorts of things - after all, they're logical and rational, and not like those silly normies who are emotional and incapable of being "rational" like them.

why are you being so condescending?
Post reply on HN