121–130 of 405 posts
It’s extremely messed up and vindictive to try and turn people into criminals for your agenda or just for profit in a lot of cases. Psycho behavior
Are you wrong? Probably not, but this is not unique to AI. People have been going to prison for 'IP theft' for decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We have infinite data, a microphone and a camera can generate huge amount of it and the public domain literature is wast. Billions of people learn like that everyday.
It’s impossible to learn any technical topic from 70+ year old books. The public domain is small and basically zero if you want to learn anything current. A microphone and camera is fine for learning about daily life, but you cannot get “book smarts” without copyrighted media.
but more seriously, if data becomes a bottleneck there are trivial ways to have more data. from crowdsourcing to forming a foundation getting universities and other stakeholders onboard and negotiating fees. and somewhere along the way on this spectrum there's the option to simply wait, or work on the problem of learning, on generating better training data from existing data, and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s impossible to learn any technical topic from 70+ year old books. The public domain is small and basically zero if you want to learn anything current. A microphone and camera is fine for learning about daily life, but you cannot get “book smarts” without copyrighted media.
If you wanted to train a bomb making AI on the most up-to-date physics textbooks in existence, that'd be what, a few hundred bucks in textbooks? Doesn't look like any kind of barrier to me.
ARMED => crazy emoji. DISARM => sad bomb emoji.
and similarly for the whole training manual for the bomb users. just encode everything as tiktok dances or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The advantage that open AI (not the company) has is that if using copyrighted content as training data without licensing it is found to be illegal, they can just keep doing it. There's plenty of FOSS software basically designed to violate copyright law (comic readers, home media center servers/clients, torrent clients) that big tech cannot compete with lest they face legal consequences. Basically what I'm saying is t…
As long as the cost for training a model is in the 7+ figures, that means that any such open model is bound to be tracked to someone with deep enough pockets to sue. Consider that you just spend a few millions on training a model on copyrighted data. Release it would reveal that, problem. I _guess_ you can try doing training in the public, like Seti @ Home or something like that, which distributes the risk? But no id…
For example, the cost of modifying Mixtral with uncensored data is currently about $1200 [1]
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…
Nah a lot are complaining about the licensing of content because they think it will destroy it but instead would essentially mean image gen ai would only be feasible for companies like Google, Disney, Adobe to build.
Not sure if you could even feasibly make GPT4 level models without a multi year timeline to sort out every licensing deal, by the end of it the subscription fee might only be viable for huge corps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I oppose regulating what calculations humans may perform in the strongest possible terms.
Ten years ago, even five years ago, I would have said exactly the same thing. I am extremely pro-FOSS. Forget the particulars for just a moment. Forget arguments about the probability of the existential risk, whatever your personal assessment of that risk is. Can we agree that people should not be able to unilaterally take existential risks with the future of humanity without the consent of humanity, based solely on…
Politicians do this every day.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The advantage that open AI (not the company) has is that if using copyrighted content as training data without licensing it is found to be illegal, they can just keep doing it. There's plenty of FOSS software basically designed to violate copyright law (comic readers, home media center servers/clients, torrent clients) that big tech cannot compete with lest they face legal consequences. Basically what I'm saying is t…
As long as the cost for training a model is in the 7+ figures, that means that any such open model is bound to be tracked to someone with deep enough pockets to sue. Consider that you just spend a few millions on training a model on copyrighted data. Release it would reveal that, problem. I _guess_ you can try doing training in the public, like Seti @ Home or something like that, which distributes the risk? But no id…
Let's say that's a field of active research. Right now you need very low latency, to the point that people connect training clusters via infiniband instead of ethernet despite the computers being meters apart. But approaches that tolerate internet-level latency are being developed
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…
> I'm talking about the ability of any AI system to obfuscate plagiarism and spam the Internet with technically distinct rewords of the same text. This is currently the most lucrative use of AI, and none of the AI safety people are talking about stopping it. This should be an explicitly allowed practice, it is following the spirit of copyright to the letter - use the ideas, facts, methods or styles while avoiding to…
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…
Absolutely not, I truly believe that many, many people will altruistically donate material to an open source foundation where all humans benefit from the models.
People are pissed because Open AI are using their copyrighted material to, make claims about ending humanity, profit hardcore, and keeping their work under their own lock and key.