121–130 of 769 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple could buy most of the NYT, RIAA and MPAA companies combined with petty cash. The big ones are Disney and Sony with a combined market cap about 250b. Microsoft alone is worth over 10 times that.
Then they should. The first transaction will appropriately value content and then WaPo, WSJ and others will see their values to up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Developing AGI is a matter of national security. "Content" isn't.
I'm curious: Have you seen indications that major militaries and politicians believe AGI , rather than special purpose ML for military purposes, is important for national security? I'm really not sure whether this is true, or whether military and political leaders think it's true.
The matter of the leaks were very “Snowdeny” in that it’s possibly that parts of our own government and our secret police share all Danish internet traffic with the NSA, who then in tern share information with our secret police. Which meant that our secret police could do surveillance on us as citizens through a legal loophole, as they aren’t allowed to do they directly, but are allowed to share surveillance information with the NSA. Part of this information comes from the giant American tech companies as well. Despite their promises to not share the data they keep for you. I know it’s sort of crackpot sounding, but between echelon, Snowden and the ridiculous amounts of scandals, I think it’s safe to assume that the American military wants in on LLMs and monitor all the inputs people put into ChatGPT and similar. So for that reason alone they’d want in on things.
Then there is how the war in Ukraine has shown how cheap drones are vital in modern warfare, and right now, they need to be manually controlled. But what if they didn’t? Maybe that’s not obtainable, but maybe it is.
Then there is all the other reasons you and I can’t think of. So even if they don’t believe it’s eventually going to lead to an AGI, or whatever else the hype wants, they’re still going to be interested in technology that’s already used by so many people and organisations around the globe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
creation competition. I agree with your premise but the chess analogy falls flat. We might, legitimately, see an enormous dropoff in people creating original works of literary, musical, and visual art (without AI).
This is an centuries old argument. Most people don’t create to make money, they create because they __have__ to. If those motivated purely by money stop creating little of value will be lost
These don't seem all that difficult to fix to me. Most of the examples are not really generic, but are shorthand descriptions of well-known entities. "Video game plumber" is practically synonymous with "Mario" and anyone that has the slightest familiarity with the character knows this. Likewise, how difficult is it to just use descriptive tools to describe Mario-like images [1] and then remove these results from anyo…
This reminds me of the early days of the internet where people wanted to remove free fanfiction for violations of copyright laws. Trying to apply copyright laws to personal use cases where the creator isn't trying to sell the material is pretty terrible, in my view.
Imagine a scenario 50 years from now - "Robot, can you cut out this picture I drew for a school diorama." "Certainly." "And this one as well." "Error: Your picture seems like it might contain some copyrighted materials, and as such I am unable to interact with it."
These don't seem all that difficult to fix to me. Most of the examples are not really generic, but are shorthand descriptions of well-known entities. "Video game plumber" is practically synonymous with "Mario" and anyone that has the slightest familiarity with the character knows this. Likewise, how difficult is it to just use descriptive tools to describe Mario-like images [1] and then remove these results from anyo…
It's going to be hard to remove every single "shorthand descriptions of well-known entities" or other prompts that can be used to generate copyrighted or trademarked content. Sure, if you're not deliberately trying to generate infringing content, you can probably remove or discard those results, the trouble is the people who will try to trick the AI to generate this content, blocking those people is going to be impos…
Aren't LLMs giant coefficient matrices like, a punched out croissant dough, made of all training data plyed over? How can you say you can remove one specific ply out of dough and declare that ever potential effect that the offending ply had created is now completely removed?
These don't seem all that difficult to fix to me. Most of the examples are not really generic, but are shorthand descriptions of well-known entities. "Video game plumber" is practically synonymous with "Mario" and anyone that has the slightest familiarity with the character knows this. Likewise, how difficult is it to just use descriptive tools to describe Mario-like images [1] and then remove these results from anyo…
It seems like a somewhat dystopian thing to fix. Imagine a scenario where Photoshop would scan images you uploaded for copyright material and then refuse to work if it determined image contained any copyrighted material or characters (even if it was just a fan drawing you did). This reminds me of the early days of the internet where people wanted to remove free fanfiction for violations of copyright laws. Trying to a…
Perhaps we should simply take this as an opportunity to finally abolish copyright. Smaller artists mainly earn their money with commissions. They are paid to do a very specific thing. Whether there is a copyright on the result is irrelevant. Someone else who would "steal" the image and use it without payment would apparently have fewer requirements. The person could have simply taken any AI image. Therefore, the arti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But OpenAI is not selling the rights to any images, or are they? When I pay for Dall-E, does the contract give me any rights for a work? If not then there is no issue.
Copyright is the right to copy things. You don't even need to sell it. This is why Wikipedia images are mostly Copyleft images. Google gets a pass because nobody is suing Google. When people try to sue Google, Google simply stops indexing them and then they start begging Google to infringe their copyright again.
How is this different to Googling “robot cop” or “video game plumber” and being served copyrighted material? Is it because Google will link to the image source? Or does the infringement begin when I use the image for gain, or claim it as my own? Perhaps it is because Google was allowed to crawl the page with the original image, so presenting them with a link is fine?
Generative AI is more or less the opposite of that. It ingests the whole work, generates output that substitutes for the used work and profits the user of copyrighted work to the detriment of the copyright holder.
Throw in the fact that it is purley a mechanical transformation of the copyrighted work and generative AI is on shaky ground.