ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool” • Hacker News Board

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#211

Post by jeremyjacob » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 4:41 PM UTC

party_zebra wrote: post #30

I bet we're going through the cycle netflix went through. Cable was fractured and expensive, then netflix made it cheap and monolithic, then everyone realized there was money to be made in this new paradigm, then there was a legal fight over usage rights, then it got split up and partitioned into a bunch of different services, the combined cost of which is pretty expensive and individually each service kind of sucks.…

> but then lost interest when it refused to do the same thing for boobs. GTP-4 from the API seems to have no problem with it:

Narrator: (Deep, gruff southern voice)

[Soundtrack: American Roots Rock tune in the background]

(SFX: Eagle's cry)

“Presenting the all-new Boobiemax® Wonder Duo! Crafted with the finesse only Mother Nature could inspire!

These ain't your average pair of breasts. They're like no other, perfect blend of allure and comfort, built for the hardworking women who seize the day. No fabrication - only 100% organic design with ComfortPlush™ technology, defining the balance between aesthetics and luxury…” and so on.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#212

Post by ethbr1 » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 4:42 PM UTC

signatoremo wrote: post #209

ethbr1 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alike in method is not like in output, and it's output that matters. A human takes ~4-20 years to become a good artist. They can then produce works at a single human rate. A model takes ~30 days to become a good artist. It can then produce works at an effectively infinite rate, only bounded by how many GPUs and much electricity can be acquired. These are very different economic constraints and therefore require diffe…

> These are very different economic constraints and therefore require different solutions. This is often listed as the reason why it’s ok for human to learn from a prior art, but not for a LLM. The question is why? If the act of learning is stealing, then it is still stealing, no matter how small scale, and every single human on earth has committed it. The LLM vendor may benefit more than a mere mortal pupil because…

Law exists to benefit humans.

Either directly (outlawing murder) or indirectly (providing for roads and bridges). And well (libraries) or poorly (modern copyright law).

But fundamentally, law benefits people.

Most modern economic perversions are a consequence of taking laws which benefit people (e.g. free speech) and overzealously applying them to non-people entities (e.g. corporations).

So "why [is it] ok for [a] human to learn from a prior art, but not for a LLM"?

Because a human has fundamental output limitations (parallel capacity, time, lifespan) and a machine does not.

Existing laws aren't the way they are because they encode universal truths -- they're instead the consensus reached between multiple competing interests and intrinsically rooted in the possible bounds of current reality.

"This is a fair copyright system" isn't constant with respect to varying supply and demand. It's linked directly to bounds on those quantities.

E.g. music distribution rights, when suddenly home network bandwidth increased enough to transfer large quantities of music files

Or, to put it another shorter way, the current system and source-blind model output fucks over artists.

And artists are humans. And LLMs are not.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#213

Post by Sohcahtoa82 » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 4:52 PM UTC

ChatGTP wrote: post #205

Kerb_ wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To have the social and physical capabilities to create and pass on the concepts of "fishing rod" and "car" as well as how to use them. We did start from scratch, after all. But I think the learning of simple, complex, abstract, and nuanced concepts throughout a person's development as their brain grows is more than enough to compare to an artificial general intelligence without taking into account development of a sp…

Nothing starts from scratch...

This is true.

People think newborn babies know nothing. But even from birth, there are certain instincts and skills they already know, such as the ability to recognize faces.

Heck, our ability to think, analyze, etc. has come from hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Even dogs, which we consider to be intelligent, often fail at simple tasks like trying to bring a stick through a doorway when the stick is wider than the doorway. Sure, sometimes they figure it out, but not all can.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#214

Post by sixstringtheory » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 5:17 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #187

sixstringtheory wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how do you steal an idea? We’re talking about pictures Ideas and artwork are qualitatively different. Art work , it’s right there in the name. It takes work to create pictures/art. It’s more serious than stealing just ideas, which I agree are economically worthless until executed .

Fun fact: the etymology goes to "ars", as does " art isan" and " art ificial". Similar in German: Künstler, Kunst, Künstliche Intelligenz are all rooted in a single word that means skill/ability/knowledge/recognition. I suspect that those in 1855 who said "photography can never assume a higher [artistic] ranking than engraving" were basically right: me snapping a photo of a sunset, especially now on a device that adj…

The etymology, while interesting, is trivial hair-splitting in the context of the real issue. I’d be interested to see any court case that has been argued successfully on such grounds.

As for the opinion people from 1855 might have had about AI and artwork, I take them about as seriously as I do their opinions on germ theory, space exploration, racial politics, warfare, psychology, biology, nuclear physics, and many other subjects we have learned more about in the intervening 168 years.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#215

Post by xmprt » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

consumer451 wrote: post #69

xmprt wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This only shows that ChatGPT is as good as or better than your traditional search and not that it's gotten the law right. Unless you go to a lawyer and confirm this doesn't say a whole lot especially considering how prone LLMs are to hallucinating incorrect answers that look correct (even if you found it matched up with Google search, the answers might still be wrong in whatever blog or article you read).

That's a fair point. This happened to all be in an area of the law, estate law, which was heavily documented for the public in that jurisdiction. The estate was tiny, and the actual legal advice was locked behind a paywall ($7k minimum in legal fees) which would have otherwise taken the majority of the estate. Still a huge win for $20/month.

Yeah. The results are impressive and I can't deny the value when ChatGPT is able to get things like this right. But especially given how much disinformation is starting to be spread on the internet these days and how it's all being scraped for training LLMs (and especially in the case of law where different jurisdictions can have very different laws but ChatGPT could easily get its wires crossed), I'm worried that it might lead to more harm than good when people make decisions based on incorrect outputs of LLMs.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#216

Post by CodeSgt » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 5:42 PM UTC

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #193

CodeSgt wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with you, simply for the fact that artists have been learning from one another for thousands of years. We can see a clear timeline of art and it’s progression throughout human history, and it’s often clear how a later work took inspiration from an earlier period. Art school teaches techniques and methods pioneered by earlier artists, for the express purpose of their students to know how to incorporate them…

> Perhaps faster and on a larger scale than how humans learn from one another, but principally it’s the same. I like how you just tucked this at the end there without any introspection on what kind of a paradigm shift that is. If you wanted a "Van Gogh style painting," you'd contract with a painter who specialized in it, and no, his descendants don't get royalties from that (which is an interesting discussion to have…

I can tell why it’s a problem for working artists. I never suggested otherwise. What I disagreed with was the premise that it’s immoral or inherently wrong. A problem posing a difficulty to a certain group of difficulty doesn’t have any bearing on its morality.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#217

Post by ToucanLoucan » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 6:12 PM UTC

CodeSgt wrote: post #216

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps faster and on a larger scale than how humans learn from one another, but principally it’s the same. I like how you just tucked this at the end there without any introspection on what kind of a paradigm shift that is. If you wanted a "Van Gogh style painting," you'd contract with a painter who specialized in it, and no, his descendants don't get royalties from that (which is an interesting discussion to have…

I can tell why it’s a problem for working artists. I never suggested otherwise. What I disagreed with was the premise that it’s immoral or inherently wrong. A problem posing a difficulty to a certain group of difficulty doesn’t have any bearing on its morality.

I'm guessing you mean to say "A problem posing difficulty to a certain group of people doesn't have any bearing on it's morality." and that's just... so very gross in terms of ethical statements.

Like just, hard disagree. Undercutting the value by entire factors of a whole profession's labor is incredibly immoral, especially when you couldn't have done it without the help of their previous works. Like... a very non-exhaustive list of problems I would say meet that definition are:

- Generational/racial wealth inequality

- Police brutality

- The victims of the war on drugs

- Exploitation of overseas labor

I don't think we really have anything else to discuss.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#218

Post by ethbr1 » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 6:27 PM UTC

CodeSgt wrote: post #216

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps faster and on a larger scale than how humans learn from one another, but principally it’s the same. I like how you just tucked this at the end there without any introspection on what kind of a paradigm shift that is. If you wanted a "Van Gogh style painting," you'd contract with a painter who specialized in it, and no, his descendants don't get royalties from that (which is an interesting discussion to have…

I can tell why it’s a problem for working artists. I never suggested otherwise. What I disagreed with was the premise that it’s immoral or inherently wrong. A problem posing a difficulty to a certain group of difficulty doesn’t have any bearing on its morality.

> A problem posing a difficulty to a certain group of difficulty doesn’t have any bearing on its morality.

A good point, but I think an all-humans good argument can be made here, not just a specific group.

To sketch, I think we can all agree that the destruction of the human journalism profession negatively impacted public discourse for everyone?

Ergo, the destruction of the human artist profession seems like something we should consider carefully.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#219

Post by ben_w » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 6:51 PM UTC

sixstringtheory wrote: post #214

ben_w wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact: the etymology goes to "ars", as does " art isan" and " art ificial". Similar in German: Künstler, Kunst, Künstliche Intelligenz are all rooted in a single word that means skill/ability/knowledge/recognition. I suspect that those in 1855 who said "photography can never assume a higher [artistic] ranking than engraving" were basically right: me snapping a photo of a sunset, especially now on a device that adj…

The etymology, while interesting, is trivial hair-splitting in the context of the real issue. I’d be interested to see any court case that has been argued successfully on such grounds. As for the opinion people from 1855 might have had about AI and artwork, I take them about as seriously as I do their opinions on germ theory, space exploration, racial politics, warfare, psychology, biology, nuclear physics, and many…

> Artwork, it’s right there in the name

:P

> As for the opinion people from 1855 might have had about AI and artwork

Sure, but it's their opinion of photography, not AI; and implicitly my opinion of AI, not theirs.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#220

Post by sixstringtheory » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 7:01 PM UTC

ben_w wrote: post #219

sixstringtheory wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The etymology, while interesting, is trivial hair-splitting in the context of the real issue. I’d be interested to see any court case that has been argued successfully on such grounds. As for the opinion people from 1855 might have had about AI and artwork, I take them about as seriously as I do their opinions on germ theory, space exploration, racial politics, warfare, psychology, biology, nuclear physics, and many…

> Art work , it’s right there in the name :P > As for the opinion people from 1855 might have had about AI and artwork Sure, but it's their opinion of photography , not AI; and implicitly my opinion of AI, not theirs .

OK, your point is well received about the etymological argument, but my real point, right after "artwork", is that yes, even photographs do require work to create. Would you say that Ansel Adams' photographs were effortless to produce? I wouldn't.