51–60 of 120 posts
Most of the predictions in that first comment came true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure but unless you bring down capitalism people will still need to work to eat and most will want to use their hard-earned creative skills to make a living. Not only that but being able to dedicate 8 to 10 hours a day to your craft for 40 years bring it to a level that you can't reach with casual practice.
> Sure but unless you bring down capitalism people will still need to work to eat and most will want to use their hard-earned creative skills to make a living. The concept of a UBI (universal basic income) isn’t inherently in conflict with capitalism. I believe that it is actually in coherence with the idea of Universal Human Rights, as defined by the UN in the 1940s. Perhaps that would be the culmination of anything…
IMHO, the realistic option is a thick enough safety net for those who is going through a rough spot, for the disabled, etc, via both taxes and charity. But the vast majority will have to work, in one way or another, until machines completely take over, like in the Culture books by Ian Banks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The criticism is that AI works are not transformative, but are recognizable “regurgitation” of training set. It’s not that AIs are too good. They look like crude knockoff products to trained eyes. And crude knockoffs are usually considered bad things.
"Good artists borrow, great artists steal." A lot of artists get started with tracing before taking off the training wheels. You also see new art styles quickly proliferate across the entire community, so clearly there's some unspoken copying happening. These models are producing new works in nearly identical styles. That's something a trained human could conceivably do.
Sure, but only privately. Publishing something you traced is a massive no-no, and selling it even more so.
This reminds me of the Jedi Mind trick of Uber of waving a smartphone to argue that labor & other laws all of a sudden don't apply to them, to the detriment of the public that'll now shoulder the costs.
> But then Meta is using those academic non-commercial datasets to train a model, presumably for future commercial use in their products. Weird, right? This is a very strong and likely inaccurate presumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the argument, overall, is that there are questions as to the legality of certain applications of the technology. Society needs to change the laws regarding the preservation of value of intellectual labor, as has long been suggested. Acting like the law doesn’t matter is a bad thing, if we are making value judgements.
So if a particular convolution appears often, how would you assign value to that? Any ideas?
The Authors Guild v Google decision about Google Books seems relevant: > In late 2013, after the class action status was challenged, the District Court granted summary judgement in favor of Google, dismissing the lawsuit and affirming the Google Books project met all legal requirements for fair use. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's summary judgement in October 2015, ruling Google's "proj…
> I think allowing people to exclude themselves or their work from a dataset is necessary. or they could open it all up for everybody and stop protecting the rights of death people (authors dead less then 70 years ago) then again, that will make the publishers starve... but why pretend publishing corporations need food?
The Authors Guild v Google decision about Google Books seems relevant: > In late 2013, after the class action status was challenged, the District Court granted summary judgement in favor of Google, dismissing the lawsuit and affirming the Google Books project met all legal requirements for fair use. The Second Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's summary judgement in October 2015, ruling Google's "proj…
Do we allow artists to withhold their works from the minds of eager, learning children? [1] Tell me how ML is different than the mind of a toddler ravenous for new information. For every billion dollar start-up using data at scale, there are tens of thousands more researchers and hobbyists doing the exact same, producing wonderful results and advances. If we stop this growth dead in the tracks, other countries more w…
Well, I can't keep a toddler in a data center, pumping out work on demand. Or copyright it and limit who it chooses to work for when it grows up.
For instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the horse is out of the gate on photocopiers and before them printing presses but that doesn't make using them without the rights to what you are copying legal
I would go as far to say a vast amount of our creative economic output would cease tomorrow if we had strict 'right to read' copyright enforcement. You can also thank Disney for extending copyright beyond all reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sure but unless you bring down capitalism people will still need to work to eat and most will want to use their hard-earned creative skills to make a living. The concept of a UBI (universal basic income) isn’t inherently in conflict with capitalism. I believe that it is actually in coherence with the idea of Universal Human Rights, as defined by the UN in the 1940s. Perhaps that would be the culmination of anything…
The problem is that UBI is in conflict with arithmetics. Short of near-total redistribution, it's impossible to provide a decent level of UBI for everyone. Total redistribution doesn't work, because economy needs markers as ways of price / demand discovery, and markets apparently lead to power-law distribution, not flat. IMHO, the realistic option is a thick enough safety net for those who is going through a rough sp…
In the United States, for example, there are so many different welfare programs, might there not be a way to consolidate under a new set of rules?
Similarly, with regards to charity, has any economist modeled a hypothetical of transiting charity into voluntary taxes for welfare?