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

This content is for human consumption only

orbistertius.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 54 posts

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#11

Post by jachee »

doesnt_know wrote: post #9
jachee wrote: post #2

Writer/Artist/Dev: “I think publishing this work will improve the world in some way. I’ll put it out there on the public internet for all the world to see for free.” AI Model Training: *processes said work.* This will improve the world! Writer/Artist/Dev: Noooo! Not like that!

> Writer/Artist/Dev: “I think publishing this work will improve the world in some way. I’ll put it out there on the public internet for all the world to see for free.” Surely you must know this is a bullshit argument right? Almost everyone that publishes their work publicly on the internet publishes it under a particular license. Yes, there are some that decide to publish under the equivalent of the public domain or…

Food for thought: Under what license did you publish this comment?

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#12

Post by dbtc »

TekMol wrote: post #5

Wouldn't it be racism to deny artificial brains to read your content while publicly offering it to human brains? If that would be possible and allowed, how long should this system be kept up? Even after AI has become just as complex and emotional as humans are? Would this also be a good idea if a human brain would be digitally cloned verbatim? If not, why is one program allowed to read while the other is not? Will AI…

These are not artificial brains, not yet anyway. Perhaps not for a long while.

I hope that the rest of earth's currently living animals are granted rights before these digital creations.

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#13

Post by GaggiX »

mmiliauskas wrote: post #10
GaggiX wrote: post #7

People should not worry about Stack Overflow or Microsoft, etc., but about individuals who can train from scratch and fine-tune the models themselves, renting or bidding powerful GPUs is not particularly expensive, downloading millions of images is not expensive, curating the dataset is not expensive, and it is only because of these people that it is worth using models like SD. And as for the article, these individua…

What do you mean "not particularly expensive", GPT-3 I think costs like $4M to train. And that is just the pre-training part.

I'm obviously not talking about training a 173B model from scratch ahah

If you want to train a model from scratch I was talking more about a small 64x64 DDIM models (that you can then upscale with openly available upscaler DDIM models and maybe finetune). In most cases however it's better to just finetune the models available, the point is that pressuring companies to not train a model on the data they host doesn't really do much if a single individual can scrape the entire DeviantArt site and finetune a model on it.

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#14

Post by jachee »

qu4z-2 wrote: post #6
jachee wrote: post #2

Writer/Artist/Dev: “I think publishing this work will improve the world in some way. I’ll put it out there on the public internet for all the world to see for free.” AI Model Training: *processes said work.* This will improve the world! Writer/Artist/Dev: Noooo! Not like that!

I mean, personally I think AI model training makes the world worse, so it's a pretty reconcilable set of views.

In what way(s) does training a language model make the world worse?

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#15

Post by sholladay »

jachee wrote: post #11
doesnt_know wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Writer/Artist/Dev: “I think publishing this work will improve the world in some way. I’ll put it out there on the public internet for all the world to see for free.” Surely you must know this is a bullshit argument right? Almost everyone that publishes their work publicly on the internet publishes it under a particular license. Yes, there are some that decide to publish under the equivalent of the public domain or…

Food for thought: Under what license did you publish this comment?

When a license isn’t specified, then the work is unlicensed. Meaning, you have not been granted any particular permission to it beyond the terms of the website and what the law provides by default. Generally, that means you can use the work in certain ways and in certain contexts, such as the notion of “fair use” in copyright law, but otherwise your rights to use and distribute it are pretty limited.

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#16

Post by ldehaan »

mmiliauskas wrote: post #10
GaggiX wrote: post #7

People should not worry about Stack Overflow or Microsoft, etc., but about individuals who can train from scratch and fine-tune the models themselves, renting or bidding powerful GPUs is not particularly expensive, downloading millions of images is not expensive, curating the dataset is not expensive, and it is only because of these people that it is worth using models like SD. And as for the article, these individua…

What do you mean "not particularly expensive", GPT-3 I think costs like $4M to train. And that is just the pre-training part.

[dead]

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#17

Post by jerojero »

Maybe I have a skewed view of the world, but I personally really don't care if something has been created by an AI or a human for most things. I mean, sure, it's nice to know you have some shoes that have been done by a person but only because this tends to be a sign of actual quality and care, a pair of boots cheaply made by a machine or through cheap labour will just not be (quality wise) as good as a pair of more expensive boots that have been given the care and patience that an expert shoe maker would do.

Now, if machines can produce shoes that are as high quality, and most of the time they can do it (for example my running shoes are quite comfortable and good enough quality) as manual labor... then do I care most of the work has been done by machines? Of course not. In this case, what worries me might be the conditions of the people working in these factories doing the work that the machine is not capable of doing.

So why would this be any different for "white collar" jobs? Why would I care if the article I'm reading has been written 90% by a machine and 10% by a human or the other way around, provided the quality of the final product matches what the author intended?

Automation, to me, is a good thing. The problems come not to me from the fact that technology being able to replace our labour seems like an existential threat to our society because we just assume that it means no one is going to get a job ever again and they're not going to be able to feed their families, etc. I mean, these are very much serious concerns but aren't we pointing fingers to the wrong places? Wouldn't it be great if 80% of the work can be done by machines? If our societal, economical, political systems are not capable of dealing with this scenario and keeping us content then I think we ought to rethink society rather than complain about automation.

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#18

Post by TekMol »

dbtc wrote: post #12
TekMol wrote: post #5

Wouldn't it be racism to deny artificial brains to read your content while publicly offering it to human brains? If that would be possible and allowed, how long should this system be kept up? Even after AI has become just as complex and emotional as humans are? Would this also be a good idea if a human brain would be digitally cloned verbatim? If not, why is one program allowed to read while the other is not? Will AI…

These are not artificial brains, not yet anyway. Perhaps not for a long while. I hope that the rest of earth's currently living animals are granted rights before these digital creations.

What is your definition of an artificial brain?

Re: This content is for human consumption only

#20

Post by quantified »

jerojero wrote: post #17

Maybe I have a skewed view of the world, but I personally really don't care if something has been created by an AI or a human for most things. I mean, sure, it's nice to know you have some shoes that have been done by a person but only because this tends to be a sign of actual quality and care, a pair of boots cheaply made by a machine or through cheap labour will just not be (quality wise) as good as a pair of more…

We ought to rethink society and economics. Although, a lot of the crap work won't be doable by machines, along with a lot of the high-touch yet low-paid work like home health care, teaching, policing and so on. Time to be an electrician.
Post reply on HN