491–500 of 809 posts
The OpenAI saga is a fine illustration of how “AI safety” will work in practice. Hint: it won’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scraping the entire internet for training data without regard for copyright or attribution - specifically to use for generative AI to produce similar content for profit. How this is being allowed to happen legally is baffling. It does suit the modus operandi of a number of American companies that start out as literally illegal/criminal operations until they get big and rich enough to pay a fine for their youthful mis…
It's not baffling at all. It's unprecedented and it's hugely beneficial to our species. The anti-AI stance is what is baffling to me. The path trotten is what got us here and obviously nobody could have paid people upfront for the wild experimentation that was necessary. The only alternative is not having done it. Given the path it has put as in, people either are insanely cruel or just completely detached from reali…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scraping the entire internet for training data without regard for copyright or attribution - specifically to use for generative AI to produce similar content for profit. How this is being allowed to happen legally is baffling. It does suit the modus operandi of a number of American companies that start out as literally illegal/criminal operations until they get big and rich enough to pay a fine for their youthful mis…
>How this is being allowed to happen legally is baffling. It's completely unprecedented. We allowed scraping images and text en masse when search engines used the data to let us find stuff. We allow copying of style, and don't allow writing styles and aesthetics to be copyrighted or trademarked. Then AI shows up, and people change lanes because they don't like the results. One of the things that made me tilt towards…
Their arguments against this amounts to "we're not using it like they intend it to be used, so it's fine if we obtain it illegally", and that's a bs standard, totally divorced from any legal reality.
Fair Use covers certain transformative uses, certainly, but it doesn't cover illegal obtaining of the content.
You can't pirate a book just because you want to use it transformatively (which is exactly what they've done), and that argument would never hold up for us as individuals, so we sure as hell shouldn't let tech companies get a special carve-out for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the non-profit is on board with that though, then they're breaking the law. The IRS should reclassify them as a for-profit for private inurement and the attorney general should have the entire board removed and replaced.
OpenAI Global, LLC - the entity that actually employs all the engineers, makes revenue from ChatGPT and the API, and pays taxes - has been a for-profit corporation since at least 2019: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI#2019:_Transition_from_n... The IRS isn’t stupid. The rules on what counts as taxable income and what the nonprofit can take tax-free have been around for decades.
https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-irs-was-gutted (2018)
> An eight-year campaign to slash the agency’s budget has left it understaffed, hamstrung and operating with archaic equipment. The result: billions less to fund the government. That’s good news for corporations and the wealthy.
The most surprising thing to me in this is that the non-profit will still exist. Not sure what the point of it is anymore. Taken as a whole, OpenAI is now just a for-profit entity beholden to investors and Sam Altman as a shareholder. The non-profit is really just vestigial. I guess technically it's supposed to play some role in making sure OpenAI "benefits humanity". But as we've seen multiple times, whenever that g…
> The most surprising thing to me in this is that the non-profit will still exist. That entity will scrape the internet and train the models and claim that "it's just research" to be able to claim that all is fair-use. At this point it's not even funny anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it's hugely beneficial to our species. Perhaps the biggest “needs citation” statement of our time.
It does not need a citation. There is no citation. What it needs, right now, is optimism. Optimism is not optional when it comes to doing new things in the world. The "needs citation" is reserved for people who do nothing and chose to be sceptics until things are super obvious. Yes, we are clearly talking about things to mostly still come here. But if you assign a 0 until its a 1 you are just signing out of advancing…
Firstly, *skeptics.
Secondly, being skeptical doesn't mean you have no optimism whatsoever, it's about hedging your optimism (or pessimism for that matter) based on what is understood, even about a not-fully-understood thing at the time you're being skeptical. You can be as optimistic as you want about getting data off of a hard drive that was melted in a fire, that doesn't mean you're going to do it. And a skeptic might rightfully point out that with the drive platters melted together, data recovery is pretty unlikely. Not impossible, but really unlikely.
Thirdly, OpenAI's efforts thus far are highly optimistic to call a path to true AI. What are you basing that on? Because I have not a deep but a passing understanding of the underlying technology of LLMs, and as such, I can assure you that I do not see any path from ChatGPT to Skynet. None whatsoever. Does that mean LLMs are useless or bad? Of course not, and I sleep better too knowing that LLM is not AI and is therefore not an existential threat to humanity, no matter what Sam Altman wants to blither on about.
And fourthly, "wanting" to stop them isn't the issue. If they broke the law, they should be stopped, simple as. If you can't innovate without trampling the rights of others then your innovation has to take a back seat to the functioning of our society, tough shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not baffling at all. It's unprecedented and it's hugely beneficial to our species. The anti-AI stance is what is baffling to me. The path trotten is what got us here and obviously nobody could have paid people upfront for the wild experimentation that was necessary. The only alternative is not having done it. Given the path it has put as in, people either are insanely cruel or just completely detached from reali…
Ah the old "we must sacrifice the weak for the benefit of humanity" argument, where have I heard this before...
And who is the one calling for action?
Sorry for being dense, but I'm trying to understand if I'm the "strong" or the "weak" in your analogy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not baffling at all. It's unprecedented and it's hugely beneficial to our species. The anti-AI stance is what is baffling to me. The path trotten is what got us here and obviously nobody could have paid people upfront for the wild experimentation that was necessary. The only alternative is not having done it. Given the path it has put as in, people either are insanely cruel or just completely detached from reali…
How has AI benefit or species so far?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does not need a citation. There is no citation. What it needs, right now, is optimism. Optimism is not optional when it comes to doing new things in the world. The "needs citation" is reserved for people who do nothing and chose to be sceptics until things are super obvious. Yes, we are clearly talking about things to mostly still come here. But if you assign a 0 until its a 1 you are just signing out of advancing…
Hey, I have some magic beans to sell you. I don’t think that the consumer LLMs that openai is pioneering is what need optimism. AlphaFold and other uses of the fundamental technology behind LLMs need hype. Not OpenAI
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not in any weirdly-self-aggrandizing "our tech is so powerful that robots will take over" sense, just the depressingly regular one of "lots of people getting hurt by a short-term profitable product/process which was actually quite flawed." We have a term for that, it's called "luddite". Those were english weavers who would break in to textile factories and destroy weaving machines at the beginning of the 1800s. Wit…
> We have a term for that, it's called "luddite". No, that's apples-to-oranges. The goals and complaints of Luddites largely concerned "who profits", the use of bargaining power (sometimes illicit), and economic arrangements in general. They were not opposing the mechanization by claiming that machines were defective or were creating textiles which had inherent risks to the wearers.
I have never thought of being anti-AI as “Luddite”, but actually this very description of “Luddite” does sound like the concerns are in fact not completely different.
Observe:
Complaints about who profits? Check; OpenAI is earning money off of the backs of artists, authors, and other creatives. The AI was trained on the works of millions(?) of people that don’t get a single dime of the profits of OpenAI, without any input from those authors on whether that was ok.
Bargaining power? Check; OpenAI is hard at work lobbying to ensure that legislation regarding AI will benefit OpenAI, rather than work against the interests of OpenAI. The artists have no money nor time nor influence, nor anyone to speak on behalf of them, that will have any meaningful effect on AI policies and legislation.
Economic arrangements in general? Largely the same as the first point I guess. Those whose works the AI was trained on have no influence over the economic arrangements, and OpenAI is not about to pay them anything out of the goodness of their heart.