ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

You toss this out as though "Intellectual Property" is this concept you don't understand as (probably) a software developer of some sort, and beyond that, an entire divison of law, to which most companies have entire floors if not entire buildings of lawyers to deal with.

> We’re talking about pictures.

I'm talking about all art in all media. There is generative music, you know. And yes the big ones for now are the text, which has been trained on millions of blog posts, reddit posts, written works creative and otherwise, all, and I will keep saying it, without the permission of the authors by and large and similarly things like MidJourney which in turn were trained on massive imagesets with different specializations, but whose sources included: photographers, illustrators, painters, furries, and likely millions of people drawing in the anime style, *also without their permission.*

> If you believe that training models on art is stealing, then I’m a master ninja, since I’m the creator of books3. And even Stephen King today came out and said that he’s fine with it

I mean, you tell me. You created a thing you stand to profit from (even if indirectly via name recognition) via the use of IP you didn't have the rights to and got permission from ONE affected individual, after the fact. If you want to be ethically in the clear, why not get permission from everyone else? Then you're done. I suspect because a) it will be a substantial amount of work and b) that you know very well most people are not going to be comfortable with their creative output being used to train a machine who aren't already rich, which means a much, much smaller dataset to use.

And if it makes you feel better you can frame as all as zealotous luddites who want to smash your machine, but again, for the record, I do find this interesting. The only part I take issue with is rent-seekers trying to monetize access to them to monied entities, and what said monied entities are going to do with them: which is largely generate spam to sell at whatever price they can manage.

> If he’s not worried, why are you?

I'm not a creative, I'm not worried for me. I just don't like what's about to happen to creatives. I don't like technology being wielded by people who don't have skin in the game, who don't respect the creative process. I frankly find it incredibly offputting how ready and frankly gleeful everyone in my field is to put millions of people to pasture with no plan for how they're to make a living, especially given how hard it is to do so as an artist already.

I just cannot conceive of someone who's like "we should automate creative processes so humans have more time for spreadsheets and time cards" and just... UGH. What in god's name sort of world are we even trying to build anymore!?

> I take a dim view of people trying to frame researchers as criminals. We’re not. We want to further science. That’s all.

I'm sure Oppenheimer did too.

> You call me a grifter,

To be clear, I called users of your model grifters, not you personally.

> but I’ve made roughly a hundred bucks from books3, and that’s because someone found my patron buried under a pile of links and subscribed to it many months ago. Most of my researcher colleagues seem to have similar distaste for wanting to make money. The work is the goal.

That doesn't change the fact that what you guys are building will be used to inflict catastrophic societal harm by people who are not looking to "do the work" as you'd put it. They're looking to maximize profits because it's their contractual obligation. If they can make one designer do the work of a hundred by feeding them a drip of AI generated garbage to tweak to something usable, they will in a heartbeat *AND YOU KNOW THAT.*

> Just understanding all the knobs of generative AI takes a lot of time.

We have more technological people in the field who can understand the knobs faster than we've ever had before. ML now has the ability to figure it's own knobs.

Who knew about Linux in 1994, compared to now? Then: not a lot, now? Half the internet.

Steam engines, very mechanical. Back then to drive a train, you needed to be trained, work with the conductor, driver. Now? A train driver operates a lever. Now AI are replacing those jobs for driver-less trains. Our local subway is exercising the idea.

ML, AI? Just search github and you'll find dime-a-dozen projects created from young-adults. It's only going to take a generation to burst this thing wide open.

I'm a 34 SysAdmin, it's past my time to jump in on the bandwagon. Not much I can do apart from feeding the servers that churn the cog.

> Yet I still paid for someone to photograph my wedding, because they are much, much better than anyone with a phone.

If you didn't have to pay and had some AI, ML do it for you producing the same results, would you?

The role of an artist will be replaced, they will co-exist. But the skill of actually producing the image will turn in to menial work; where for what their talent was once worth, skill learnt will suffer to be.

Anyone can type a "A fairy-elf of a dystopian world with a abandoned castle fighting off a horde of bionic-flies". All you would need is an artist to brush up on the artwork to make it feel more "human".

Maybe for the initial design, but once done. Why would you pay the artist, when you've already got the concept image required to be trained upon?

I recently vectorized a PDF of material that contains a lot of complex scheduling language. It covers legal regulations as well as contractual constraints. Using langchain’s QA function I queried the vector DB. I then tested it against a sample of questions from a Facebook group on the subject. It did shockingly well.

It seems so much has to do with feeding it the right chunks of source material. When I experimented with just copy and paste small chunks on my own it rarely provided useful feedback.

I love the law idea. I just bought a house and would like to do an addition. Feeding local code and regulation for QA could be a god send in navigating this stuff for a non-expert.