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

Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 354 posts

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#211

Post by Workaccount2 »

shadowgovt wrote: post #196
snickerdoodle12 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much damning evidence that AI companies have committed absolutely shocking amounts of piracy, yet nothing is being done. It only highlights how the world really works. If you have money you get to do whatever the fuck you want. If you're just a normal person you get to spend years in jail or worse. Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GptobqPsvg

There's actually a lot of court activity on this topic, but the law moves slowly and is reluctant to issue injunctions where harm is not obvious. It's more that the law about "one guy decides to pirate twelve movies to watch them at home and share with his buddies" is already well-settled, but the law about "a company pirates 10,000,000 pieces to use as training data for an AI model (a practice that the law already s…

There is a distinction that must be made that very few people do, but thankfully the courts seems to grasp:

Training on copyright is a separate claim than skirting payment for copyright.

Which pretty much boils down to: "If they put it out there for everyone to see, it's probably OK to train on it, if they put it behind a paywall and you don't pay, the training part doesn't matter, it's a violation."

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#212

Post by snickerdoodle12 »

gruez wrote: post #210
snickerdoodle12 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exact same charges could apply to the AI scrapers illegitimately accessing random websites.

Part of the accusation comes from the fact that Swartz accessed the downloads through a MIT network closet, which AI companies wasn't doing. The equivalent to that would be if openai broke into a wiring closet at Disneyland to download Disney movies.

The CFAA is vague enough to punish unauthorized access to a computer system. I don't have an example case in mind, but people have gotten in trouble for scraping websites before while ignoring e.g. robots.txt

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#213

Post by gruez »

codedokode wrote: post #209
gruez wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Let's not forget that some of real pirates (for example, corsairs) also were legal and performed legitimate pirate activities to ships of foreign countries. In other words there are activities that are legal or not depending on whether you have authorization from the state. That describes many things. For instance you synthesize meth without a license from the DEA/FDA, you're a "drug cartel" or whatever. But if you…

Synthesizing chemical substances doesn't involve murdering people though.

Families of fentanyl overdose victims would disagree. Moreover it's not hard to find examples of "legal if the government authorizes it" for killings. Cops and soldiers, for instance.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#214

Post by codedokode »

alphan0n wrote: post #193
snickerdoodle12 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much damning evidence that AI companies have committed absolutely shocking amounts of piracy, yet nothing is being done. It only highlights how the world really works. If you have money you get to do whatever the fuck you want. If you're just a normal person you get to spend years in jail or worse. Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GptobqPsvg

No one (in the US) has been jailed for downloading copyrighted material.

What about people filming movies in the cinema (for learning of course)? [1]

[1] https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/unauthorized-rec...

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#215

Post by Workaccount2 »

madcaptenor wrote: post #171
xigoi wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?

I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.

Having zero exposure to any form of computation for your entire life, as the vast majority of people in the early 19th century were.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#216

Post by snickerdoodle12 »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #211
shadowgovt wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's actually a lot of court activity on this topic, but the law moves slowly and is reluctant to issue injunctions where harm is not obvious. It's more that the law about "one guy decides to pirate twelve movies to watch them at home and share with his buddies" is already well-settled, but the law about "a company pirates 10,000,000 pieces to use as training data for an AI model (a practice that the law already s…

There is a distinction that must be made that very few people do, but thankfully the courts seems to grasp: Training on copyright is a separate claim than skirting payment for copyright. Which pretty much boils down to: "If they put it out there for everyone to see, it's probably OK to train on it, if they put it behind a paywall and you don't pay, the training part doesn't matter, it's a violation."

So if I download copyrighted material like the new disney movie with fansubs and watch it for training purposes instead of enjoyment purposes it's fine? In that case I've just been training myself, your honor. No, no, I'm not enjoying these TV shows.

Because it's important to grasp the scale of these copyright violations:

* They downloaded, and admitted to using, Anna's Archive: Millions of books and papers, most of which are paywalled but they pirated it instead

* They acquired Movies and TV shows and used unofficial subtitles distributed by websites such as OpenSubtitles, which are typically used for pirated media. Official releases such as DVDs tend to have official subtitles that don't sign off with "For study/research purpose only. Please delete after 48 hours" or "Subtitles by %some_username%"

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#217

Post by chris_wot »

My wife, who speaks and reads Arabic, got a real kick out of this.

But honestly, this is the AI equivalent of “please send for translating” in Welsh on a Welsh street sign.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/nov/01/5

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#218

Post by poly2it »

ilyakaminsky wrote: post #141
dandiep wrote: post #4

Whisper is unusable IMO because of the hallucinations. Widely documented. Removing silence from audio clips helps, but even then it will auto correct grammar, translating bilingual speech, etc. Improved in the latest audio models but not solved [1] 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43427376

I wouldn't describe it as "unusable" so much as needing to understand its constraints and how to work around them. I built a business on top of Whisper [1] and one of the early key insights was to implement a good voice activity detection (VAD) model in order to reduce Whisper's hallucinations on silence. [1] https://speechischeap.com

How does this make a profit? Whisper should be $0.006 to $0.010 per minute, but you rate less than $0.001? Do you 10x the audio?

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#219

Post by Workaccount2 »

retsibsi wrote: post #146
scotty79 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's insane is copyright. How come you can own intellectual property but not pay a property tax? The ecosystem would be much healthier if to get copyright protections you should declare value of your IP (that you are obligated to sell for if the buyer pops up) and pay tax on this for every year you hold the IP.

> if to get copyright protections you should declare value of your IP (that you are obligated to sell for if the buyer pops up) and pay tax on this for every year you hold the IP I think this would have some unpalatable consequences. Let's say an author is writing a modestly successful book series: it's not going to make them rich, but it's commercially viable and they care a lot about it for its own sake. Under this…

Perhaps the tax would start a decade after the first sale.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#220

Post by codedokode »

alphan0n wrote: post #193
snickerdoodle12 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much damning evidence that AI companies have committed absolutely shocking amounts of piracy, yet nothing is being done. It only highlights how the world really works. If you have money you get to do whatever the fuck you want. If you're just a normal person you get to spend years in jail or worse. Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GptobqPsvg

No one (in the US) has been jailed for downloading copyrighted material.

There could be a moral question. For example a researcher might not want to download a pirated paper and cause loss to a fellow researcher. But it becomes pretty stupid to pay when everyone, including large reputable companies endorsed by the government, is just downloading the content for free. Maybe his research will help developing faster chips to win against China, why should he pay?

Would it be a "fair use" to download pirated papers for research instead of buying?

Also I was gradually migrating from obtaining software from questionable sources to open source software, thinking that this is going out of trend and nobody torrents apps anymore, but it seems I was wrong?

Or another example: if someone wants to make contributions to Wine but needs a Windows for developing the patch, what would be the right choice, buy it or download a free copy from questionable source?

Post reply on HN