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

S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

timkellogg.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 430 posts

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#391

Post by vidarh »

nrabulinski wrote: post #383
boxcake wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't any answer to a question which hasn't been previously answered a derivative work? Or when a human write a parody of a song, or when a new type of music is influenced by something which came before.

This argument is so bizarre to me. Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts. AI doesn’t have that. Even if someone’s comment is influenced by all the data they have ingested over their lives, their style is distinct and deliberate, to the point where people have been doxxed before/anonymous accounts have been uncovered because someone recognized the writing style. There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical pr…

This argument is so bizarre to me.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support that humans create "new, spontaneous thoughts" in any materially, qualitatively different way than an AI. In other words: As a Turing-computable function over the current state. It may be that current AI's can't, but the notion that there is some fundamental barrier is a hypothesis with no evidence to support it.

> Even if you give GenAI unlimited time, it will not develop its own writing/drawing/painting style or come up with a novel idea, because strictly by how it works it can only create „new” work by interpolating its dataset

If you know of any mechanism whereby humans can do anything qualitatively different, then you'd have the basis for a Nobel Prize-winning discovery. We know of no mechanism that could allow humans to exceed the Turing computability that AI models are limited to.

We don't even know how to formalize what it would mean to "come up with a novel idea" in the sense you appear to mean, as presumably, something purely random would not satisfy you, yet something purely Turing computable would also not do, but we don't know of any computable functions that are not Turing computable.

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#392

Post by eru »

downrightmike wrote: post #342
eru wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At most it would be illicit copying. Though it's poetic justice that OpenAI is complaining about someone else playing fast and loose with copyright rules.

The First Amendment is not just about free speech, but also the right to read, the only question is if AI has that right.

I'm not sure the US 'First Amendment' is relevant here? DeepSeek is in China.

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#393

Post by eru »

vidarh wrote: post #391
nrabulinski wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument is so bizarre to me. Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts. AI doesn’t have that. Even if someone’s comment is influenced by all the data they have ingested over their lives, their style is distinct and deliberate, to the point where people have been doxxed before/anonymous accounts have been uncovered because someone recognized the writing style. There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical pr…

This argument is so bizarre to me . There is no evidence whatsoever to support that humans create "new, spontaneous thoughts" in any materially, qualitatively different way than an AI. In other words: As a Turing-computable function over the current state. It may be that current AI's can't, but the notion that there is some fundamental barrier is a hypothesis with no evidence to support it. > Even if you give GenAI u…

> In other words: As a Turing-computable function over the current state.

You need to be a bit more expansive. Turing-computable functions need to halt and return eventually. (And they need to be proven to halt.)

> We know of no mechanism that could allow humans to exceed the Turing computability that AI models are limited to.

Depends on which AI models you are talking about? When generating content, humans have access to vastly more computational resources than current AI models. To give a really silly example: as a human I can swirl some water around in a bucket and be inspired by the sight. A current AI model does not have the computational resources to simulate the bucket of water (nor does it have a robotic arm and a camera to interact with the real thing instead.)

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#394

Post by eru »

Ringz wrote: post #387
nrabulinski wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument is so bizarre to me. Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts. AI doesn’t have that. Even if someone’s comment is influenced by all the data they have ingested over their lives, their style is distinct and deliberate, to the point where people have been doxxed before/anonymous accounts have been uncovered because someone recognized the writing style. There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical pr…

> Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts. The compatibility of determinism and freedom of will is still controversially debated. There is a good chance that Humans don’t „create“. > There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical probabilities. There’s no new or spontaneous thoughts, at most pseudorandomness introduced by the author of the model interface. You can say exactly the same about deterministic humans…

> The compatibility of determinism and freedom of will is still controversially debated. There is a good chance that Humans don’t „create“.

Determinism and free will are pretty irrelevant here.

Unless P=NP, there's no way for us to distinguish in general between eg pseudo random systems and truly random systems from the outside.

Btw, I don't think determinism in humans/AI has anything to do with deliberation.

The newest AI models are allowed to deliberate. At least by some meanings of the word.

> This is justified by the fact that our concept of freedom means a decision that is self-determined by reasons and not a sequence of events determined by chance.

Well, different people have different definitions here. None of them very satisfying.

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#396

Post by INGSOCIALITE »

downrightmike wrote: post #342
eru wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At most it would be illicit copying. Though it's poetic justice that OpenAI is complaining about someone else playing fast and loose with copyright rules.

The First Amendment is not just about free speech, but also the right to read, the only question is if AI has that right.

kind of. the constitution as a whole, and the amendments, don't give you the right to do anything. you have the right to do whatever you want whenever you want. the constitution tells the government what it can and can not stop you from doing.

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#397

Post by palmotea »

soco wrote: post #349
palmotea wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This isn’t true. The biggest companies are all rich because they cater to the massive US middle class.. It is true, but I can see why you'd be confused. Let me ask you this: if members of the "the massive US middle class" can be replaced with automation, are those companies going 1) to keep paying those workers to support the middle-class demand which made them rich, or are they going to 2) fire them so more money…

So you end up with a huge starved mob trying to come all over your mansions and islands. I somehow think Musk totally capable of nuking those mobs, or unleash the (future) AI dogs over them, because the mob cannot produce anymore (because of AI) and cannot pay anymore (because no jobs because of AI). So the mob will be totally worthless to this style of "capitalism". Really why would they bother with UBI when they ca…

> Really why would they bother with UBI when they can let the mob just die out?

Personally, I think UBI is a ploy to keep the "huge starved mob[s]" pacified during the transition, when they still have enough power to act, before the tech oligarchs fully cement their control.

Once the common people are powerless to protect themselves and their interests, then they'll be left to die out.

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#398

Post by eru »

antimatter15 wrote: post #378
eru wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At most it would be illicit copying. Though it's poetic justice that OpenAI is complaining about someone else playing fast and loose with copyright rules.

It's hardly even illicit- at least in the United States, the output of an AI isn't copyrightable.

Was that decided in courts, yet?

In any case, copyright ain't the only thing that prevents copying.

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#399

Post by advael »

vidarh wrote: post #391
nrabulinski wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument is so bizarre to me. Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts. AI doesn’t have that. Even if someone’s comment is influenced by all the data they have ingested over their lives, their style is distinct and deliberate, to the point where people have been doxxed before/anonymous accounts have been uncovered because someone recognized the writing style. There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical pr…

This argument is so bizarre to me . There is no evidence whatsoever to support that humans create "new, spontaneous thoughts" in any materially, qualitatively different way than an AI. In other words: As a Turing-computable function over the current state. It may be that current AI's can't, but the notion that there is some fundamental barrier is a hypothesis with no evidence to support it. > Even if you give GenAI u…

This argument, by now a common refrain from defenders of companies like OpenAI, misses the entire putative point of intellectual property, and the point of law in general. It is a distraction of a common sort - an attempt to reframe a moral and legal question into an abstract ontological one

The question of whether the mechanism of learning in a human brain and that in an artificial neural network is similar is a philosophical and perhaps technical one that is interesting, but not relevant to why intellectual property law was conceived: To economically incentivize human citizens to spend their time producing creative works. I don't actually think property law is a good way to do this. Nonetheless the question when massive capital investments are used to scrape artists' work in order to undercut their ability to make a living from that work for the benefit of private corporations that do not have their consent to do this is whether this should violate this artificial notion of intellectual property that we have constructed for this purpose, and in that sense, it's fairly obvious that the answer is yes

Re: S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

#400

Post by Ringz »

eru wrote: post #394
Ringz wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts. The compatibility of determinism and freedom of will is still controversially debated. There is a good chance that Humans don’t „create“. > There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical probabilities. There’s no new or spontaneous thoughts, at most pseudorandomness introduced by the author of the model interface. You can say exactly the same about deterministic humans…

> The compatibility of determinism and freedom of will is still controversially debated. There is a good chance that Humans don’t „create“. Determinism and free will are pretty irrelevant here. Unless P=NP, there's no way for us to distinguish in general between eg pseudo random systems and truly random systems from the outside. Btw, I don't think determinism in humans/AI has anything to do with deliberation. The new…

> Determinism and free will are pretty irrelevant here.

No. It’s the other way around. Free will is the basic for „creating something new“.

> Btw, I don't think determinism in humans/AI has anything to do with deliberation.

With determinism there is no deliberation.

Post reply on HN