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

Things are about to get worse for generative AI

garymarcus.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 769 posts

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#221

Post by Baldbvrhunter »

moron4hire wrote: post #132
Baldbvrhunter wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Midjourney's TOS > You may not use the Service to try to violate the intellectual property rights of others, including copyright, patent, or trademark rights. Doing so may subject you to penalties including legal action or a permanent ban from the Service. Perplexity's > Intellectual Property Rights > Perplexity AI acknowledges and respects the intellectual property rights of all individuals and entities, and expects…

Yeah, that's nice and all, but it's not what we're talking about. These passages are about deliberately using the tool to violate copyright. What if, in good faith, I don't deliberately attempt to infringe, but the tool still produces results that do? Because that is happening. And that's just their interpretation of the tool. There is another interpretation that their tool itself is a violation.

I should have explained that those bits are all there is.

You are right, how am I to know that is an image from a movie or passage from the NYT?

Ask George Harrison about "My Sweet Lord" which cost him $587,000 for his unconcious infringement.

Another example would be the 2013 hit "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams. It was found to have copied the "feel" and "sound" of Marvin Gaye's 1977 song "Got to Give It Up." The court awarded Gaye's estate $7.4 million in damages, later reduced to $5.3 million.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#222

Post by kranke155 »

amazingman wrote: post #209
bnralt wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your scenario already exists, but for currency. Photoshop will refuse to work if it thinks you might be counterfeiting currency.

that's literally the only scenario where it exists.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#223

Post by josh-sematic »

Gary Marcus is growing his subscriber base using images of copyrighted IP (C3PO, Mario, etc.). Fair use? Then why is the tool he used to produce those materials not also fair use of the IP? My take is that either we say the models are like people (do we penalize people for learning from IP and letting that influence what they subsequently produce?) or we say they are like tools (do we penalize Adobe because Photoshop makes it easier to make a picture of Mario on the Death Star?).

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#224

Post by numpad0 »

keiferski wrote: post #152
numpad0 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why some peoole thinks any infringing content can be singled out and removed. 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?

I’m no LLM expert but I think there is a distinction to be made between the LLM dataset and the output it gives to the user. What you’re suggesting is that it’s difficult to remove something from the dataset, which may be the case. But that doesn’t mean the user will necessarily be able to access it. My guess is that this is much easier to attack from the user end.

Removing something from the dataset requires full training from scratch(~$100 million for base unaligned GPT-4). You can't like, edit the database file and keep the AI. the database file _is_ the AI.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#225

Post by kranke155 »

marckrn wrote: post #77

I might be a bit idealistic, but I've always believed that the core purpose of art and publishing should be to influence culture and society, not just to make a heap of money. That's why I feel original work needs its protection, but it should enter the public domain much sooner to fuel creativity and inspiration. We should be thinking in terms of a few years for this transition, not decades.

So what do you suggest artists have for dinner.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#227

Post by endisneigh »

danielbln wrote: post #216
endisneigh wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should art be subject to these rules and not everything else?

OP said art and publishing, which would include anything from software, music, books and so on.

So you interpret it as including everything? If so why emphasize art at all?

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#228

Post by sensanaty »

ben_w wrote: post #207
sensanaty wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A child isn't a computer program, and no amount of anthropomorphizing will ever make them so. Especially ChatGPT and other LLMs, they're not even close to being AGI or an "intelligent entity" as you put it, despite what all the AI-bro hype and marketing would like everyone else to believe.

> they're not even close to being AGI Only because all three letters of the initialism mean different things to different people. Existing LLMs won't do everything, but bluntly: good, we're not ready for a world where there is an AI that can do everything for $1-60/million words[0], and we need to get ready for that world before we find ourselves living in it. ChatGPT-3.5 has a lot of weaknesses, but it can still do…

> ChatGPT-3.5 has a lot of weaknesses, but it can still do a better job of coding than a few of my coworkers demonstrated over the last 20 years.

Whenever people say stuff like this I can't help but wonder what on earth kind of projects they work on. Even GPT4, while useful for things like reformatting or generating boilerplate code and stuff like that, it's still a far cry from any decent dev I've ever worked with, especially if you're not using a popular language like JS or Python.

My usual PRs at work are pretty big, complex pieces of code that all have to actually work when integrated with the larger system around it, no AI tool I've tried so far has come even close to acceptable here, other than for generating some boilerplate code that I would've written myself anyway. But even with the innocent-looking boilerplate there's always a weird gotcha that isn't obvious until you really analyze the code closely. It ends up saving nothing more than a few keystrokes, if that, yet people say all the time that they're generating entire pieces of software by gluing together code it spits out, which I find absolutely insane given my anecdotal attempts at it.

This can circumvented by going with more elaborate in-depth prompts, but at that point are you really saving on effort compared to the alternative? Is it really more efficient? By the time I have a prompt complex enough for it to spit out something good at me, I could've already bashed out the code myself anyways.

That's not even mentioning all the legacy shit you have to keep in mind for any one line of code, plus whatever conventions and standards your team uses and has etc.

I mean it works great for a function or whatever, but is that seriously what most people are working on? Simple, one-off independent function calls that don't interact in any way with anything within a larger system? Even simple CRUD apps aren't so well isolated.

Don't even get me started on the actual difficult part which is the whole preamble to creating the ticket in JIRA or whatever task management software you use where you're talking with stakeholders and planning out the work ahead, you're telling me you're paying 'Open'AI to do that whole rigamarole for you, and you're doing it successfully?

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#229

Post by ben_w »

SoftTalker wrote: post #186
block_dagger wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT is not an intelligent entity? What’s been comprehending and rewriting all my crappy code for several months? An auto-complete? There’s obviously emergent behavior there that is actually defined by the maker and most users as “intelligence.” Edit: typo

I would paraphrase one of Clarke's laws and say that "Any sufficiently advanced text generator is indistinguishable from an intelligent entity." Just because a computer program's output is remarkably good does not mean there is any emergent intelligence, any more than a technology we don't understand means there is magic.

The reverse can also be true, with John Keats' agreeing with Charles Lamb that Newton "had destroyed all the poetry of the rainbow, by reducing it to the prismatic colours": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamia_(poem)

If we should ever fully understand how our own minds work, will we hold machines in higher esteem, or ourselves in lower?

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#230

Post by danielbln »

endisneigh wrote: post #227
danielbln wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP said art and publishing, which would include anything from software, music, books and so on.

So you interpret it as including everything? If so why emphasize art at all?

Probably because the article focuses a lot on copyrighted art?
Post reply on HN