421–430 of 769 posts
Or... things are about to get worse for copyright holders. I don't see any developped country pressing the brake on AGI in the near future to protect a few copyright holders from getting "stolen" in hypothetic scenarios.
How would that be any different than Google displaying some type of news headline?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copyright should be the problem of the person using the works and not the problem of the AI generating it. Unless Nintendo plans on busting down the doors of every person who tries to draw Mario or preventing little Timmy from making a parody of Coca-Cola, making it where AI cannot generated copyrighted works is insane imo. Those brands should be proud to be such a big part of the cultural fabric that it is difficult…
When I cover generative AI in my Ethics in AI lecture, one of few soapbox opinions I give is that GenAI is doing essentially what people do - copy others. Picasso has a quote about "Good Artists copy, Great Artists steal", which doesn't mean try to pass Lario and Muigi off as your own, but rather that great artists are able to take aspects from other works (also called 'inspiration') without being caught. My personal…
Yeah, but we don't typically congratulate users of GenAI for their creativity, and neither do we congratulate the code, nor do we think of the coders of GenAI as great artists.
In other words, your analogy is broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really see no difference between someone drawing a piece of fan art and trillion dollar corporations stealing other people's works and reselling it for their own profit with no regards to anyone or anything else? And yes, obviously society cares about many things depending on the scales in question. It's okay if a dude goes onto a lake on his small rowboat and catches a few fish for dinner, it's a completely d…
It's not stealing and they're not reselling anything. That's why it's called Generative AI
Or... things are about to get worse for copyright holders. I don't see any developped country pressing the brake on AGI in the near future to protect a few copyright holders from getting "stolen" in hypothetic scenarios.
What if that example of the production of NYT article under the hood is ChatGPT just fetching a fast cache of the article then paraphrasing it. How would that be any different than Google displaying some type of news headline?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see any developped country pressing the brake on AGI in the near future It’s already happening with EU AI Act https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/society/202...
AFAIK the EU AI Act primarily prevents profiling, social scoring and other high risk activities from using AI. It generally didn’t care about generative AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is dystopian, and it already exists, e.g. printers refusing to print anything that looks sufficiently like money. Like many things, I suspect this will end up getting worse before there's a chance for it to get better.
> It is dystopian, and it already exists, e.g. printers refusing to print anything that looks sufficiently like money. There is no fair or private use of hyper-realistic fake money. There are fair uses of copyrighted materials unless you want to start suing children for copyright infringement when they draw a character.
What about every movie ever made where two people trade a briefcase full of cash?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any biology or physics that suggests humans are just a pattern recognizer will be discarded as us being a conscious being is the only thing every human knows to be 100% true.
So, all of biology and physics then. If souls exist, they have no mass, and have a weird way of being repeatably disrupted in consistent ways by damage to certain parts of the brain or specific chemicals. Just because consciousness is a mystery today, doesn't mean we get to stop and say it will be so forever more. Heck, the problem still fundamentally exists regardless of if you're atheist, monotheist, polytheist, or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rounding up a transaction and taking the leftovers wouldn’t be a crime worthy of the FBI for one transaction but it would be for a million or a billion. Scale matters and impact matters. If you’re making an ethical argument “it’s okay because it’s already happening to a lesser degree somewhere else” isn’t the flex you think it is. If you’re talking ethics, talk about impact. Who does it help the most who does it hurt…
> “it’s okay because it’s already happening to a lesser degree somewhere else” isn’t the flex you think it is. It actually is. It shows that we as a society are completely OK with this, and nobody is complaining about a very standard and common thing that all artists do. It shows that the outrage is fake, and people don't actually care about the issue.
To me that’s the wrong question. Everyone knew it was trained on copyrighted material and capable of eerily similar outputs. But it’s already done. At scale. Large corps committing fully. There is no chance of that toothpaste going back in the tube. It’s a bit like when big tech built on aggressive user data harvesting. Whether it’s right, ethical or even legal is academic at this stage. They just did it - effectivel…
That's a really eloquent way of saying "It's already happening, so give up on it." I'm sure it works out great for taking action and solving problems.
I for one think that indeed there are many cases like this where the only feasible way out is forward. The film GATTACA expressed this very human sentiment well:
> You want to know how I did it? This is how I did it, Anton: I never saved anything for the swim back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm opposed to my (fairly minor) copyrighted works being used in GenAI datasets as well. I just have no practical way to stop it, and there aren't clear enough damages to sue. That doesn't make it legal.
OpenAI also plays some ugly games with regards to the difference between training and search. Search requests come from the `ChatGPT-User` user-agent, and I'd like to allow those; training and scraping requests come from `GPTBot`, and I have no interest in those. But as per their own documentation, putting one in robots.txt disables the other.