481–490 of 641 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The current corpus used for training includes virtually all known material. This is just totally incorrect. It's one of those things everyone just assumes, but there's an immense amount of known material that isn't even digitized, much less in the hands of tech companies.
What large caches of undigitized content exists? Surely, not everything has been digitized, but I can’t think it’s much in percentage terms.
There is a whole giant essay I probably need to write at some point, but I can't help but see parallels between today and the Industrial Revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution, the natural world was nearly infinitely abundant. We simply weren't efficient enough to fully exploit it. That meant that it was fine for things like property and the commons to be poorly defined. If all of us can go hunting in the woo…
As you know, I deeply respect you. Not trying to argue here, just provide my own perspective: > Why would a writer put an article online if ChatGPT will slurp it up and regurgitate it back to users without anyone ever even finding the original article? I write things for two main reasons: I feel like I have to. I need to create things. On some level, I would write stuff down even if nobody reads it (and I do do that…
> people read things… their life is better
> it’s just my own
What was the point of writing this though?
Perhaps I should know who you are, but assuming you are a regular HN forum user - you are still very much a participant in a larger information economy / ecosystem.
All of us depend on that system, that commons.
Visits to Wikipedia have dropped by at least 8% since 2025, other estimates are starker. This will have an impact on donations.
These reports are similar for many sites which write or produce content.
Your individual behavior may be perfectly fine, and you are entitled to your perspective, but that doesn’t become a defense for the degradations of the commons.
If anything, it’s a classic example of the kind of argument that ends up entangling ideas and making conclusions harder to reach.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're missing the point. This is the crux of munificent's argument IMO (and I've made variations of it as well) > We have copyright and intellecual property law already, of course, but those were designed presuming a human might try to profit from the intellectual labor of others. You getting a summary of a copyrighted work from a friend is necessarily limited by the number of friends you have, the amount of time th…
Yes, true. But does that really shift the argument much? An AI is like the most well-read book nerd you’ve ever met. The AI has read everything. They still won’t recite Harry Potter for you at full length and reading what the original author wrote is part of the pleasure.
1) Quantity is its own quality: Scale makes a difference
2) The tools themselves automate tasks and consolidate their outputs. The “sale” of a piece of content, and its consumption, shifts away from the people producing it Example: We have entire networks and systems that depended on consumption occurring on the site itself. News websites, or indie sites depend on ad revenue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An AI is like the most well-read book nerd you’ve ever met. The AI has read everything But no real book nerd has read everything. Current law was designed for the capabilities of humans.
Sure, we could change current law, but I think that only forces an AI company to buy one copy of every book. I don’t think it gives any sort of royalty stream to anyone beyond that. Copyright is literally the right to make copies. Once I have acquired a copy, I can read it, summarize it, transform it, etc. in myriad ways.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Prior to the industrial revolution, the natural world was nearly infinitely abundant. We simply weren't efficient enough to fully exploit it. This is just wildly incorrect. People started running out of trees during the early Iron Age. Woodlands have been a managed and often over exploited resource for a long time. Active agriculture vs passive woodlands vs animal grazing has been in constant tension for thousands…
People had been hunting whales for centuries, but industrialisation gave them the means and the motivation to do so until near extinction.
Obviously we’re becoming better at extracting resources over time, but humans ran out of new land to exploit long before Europe's conquest of the Americas. Land only seemed empty because disease decimated native populations, people lived in San Francisco thousands of years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Prior to the industrial revolution, the natural world was nearly infinitely abundant. We simply weren't efficient enough to fully exploit it. This is just wildly incorrect. People started running out of trees during the early Iron Age. Woodlands have been a managed and often over exploited resource for a long time. Active agriculture vs passive woodlands vs animal grazing has been in constant tension for thousands…
The general point is accurate, don’t take it so literally. There were more than enough trees until we developed the technology to clear cut in expeditious manner. There were more than enough fish until we developed the technology to pull massive indiscriminate amounts out of the ocean (and/or started polluting our rivers with industry). There was more than enough topsoil until we developed mechanized plows and artifi…
There is a whole giant essay I probably need to write at some point, but I can't help but see parallels between today and the Industrial Revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution, the natural world was nearly infinitely abundant. We simply weren't efficient enough to fully exploit it. That meant that it was fine for things like property and the commons to be poorly defined. If all of us can go hunting in the woo…
> We are truly in the Information Age now, and I suspect a similar thing will play out for the digital realm. The analogy seems to be backwards though. It would be as if we previously had a scarcity of land and because of that divided it up into private property so markets could maximize crop yield etc. and then someone came up with a way to grow food on asteroids using robots, and that food is only at the 20th perce…
You make the point later in your comment, but consider it a minor issue. “Randos”
the actual limits are verification, and then attention. Verification is always more expensive than generation.
However, people are happy to consume unverified content which suits their needs. This is why you always needed to subsidize newspapers with ads or classifieds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We know that they do not reason because we know the algorithm behind the curtain. The model is generating the next token via model weights and some randomness. That’s all. It not reasoning. Sometimes it has an appearance of reasoning, but not if you know how it works. It doesn’t matter that the model manufacturer marketing department slaps a “Reasoning!” sticker on the side of the model. It’s not actually doing that.…
Well, could you define what reasoning actually means? What would an AI need to do to be considered capable of reasoning? What is the core difference between what we do that is considered reasoning verse what AI currently does that is not considered reasoning? To be clear, I am not making a statement as to whether AI reasons or not. Its just slippery to say something isn't or can't do X when we can't really define X.…
Even in this discussion someone provided an example of coming up with board game rules. LLMs found all board game rules valid, because they looked and sounded like board game rules. Even when they were not.
In short, You can learn a subject, you can make a mental model of it, you can play with it, and you can rotate or infer new things about it.
LLMs are more analogous to actors, who have learnt a stupendous amount of lines, and know how those lines work.
They are, by definition, models of language.
IF you want a better version - GENAI needs to be able to generate working voxels of hands and 3D objects just from images.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Prior to the industrial revolution, the natural world was nearly infinitely abundant. We simply weren't efficient enough to fully exploit it. This is just wildly incorrect. People started running out of trees during the early Iron Age. Woodlands have been a managed and often over exploited resource for a long time. Active agriculture vs passive woodlands vs animal grazing has been in constant tension for thousands…
The general point is accurate, don’t take it so literally. There were more than enough trees until we developed the technology to clear cut in expeditious manner. There were more than enough fish until we developed the technology to pull massive indiscriminate amounts out of the ocean (and/or started polluting our rivers with industry). There was more than enough topsoil until we developed mechanized plows and artifi…
There is a whole giant essay I probably need to write at some point, but I can't help but see parallels between today and the Industrial Revolution. Prior to the industrial revolution, the natural world was nearly infinitely abundant. We simply weren't efficient enough to fully exploit it. That meant that it was fine for things like property and the commons to be poorly defined. If all of us can go hunting in the woo…
You might want to give the following Articles a read then: https://www.ufried.com/blog/ironies_of_ai_1/ https://www.ufried.com/blog/ironies_of_ai_2/