541–550 of 783 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open source software is unique in that it takes little to no capital investment to create. People post free art too. It doesn't mean that Game of Thrones didn't cost anything to produce.
Writing books and creating music also takes no capital investment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You should check out this thing called GPL that is the standard license of open source projects like Linux, and heavily depends on copyright laws. Or are you suggesting open source software is public domain?
You may want to review your history. The GPL is copyleft -it only exists to subvert copyright law by using it against itself in a sort of intellectual legal judo. If "IP" laws were not as they were, there would be no need for the GPL. Software would be Free. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft
There’s a fallacy that gets used a whole lot to justify things like this (not just with LLMs), and I see it in many of the comments here: If it’s OK (or at least negligible on a small scale), then it must be OK on a large scale. It usually goes something like: If I can make money by learning something from a web page, why does a computer making money by learning everything from everyone upset people so? It’s the same…
Of course quantity makes emerge it’s own quality. If you kill a single person, you are a murderer, if you genocide "others" and distribute the spoliation wealth to those unscathed you are a national hero. If you steal small material you are a theft and go to prison, if you hog some billions you can enact laws to grab even more.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how laws work. It's not the scale that makes it okay, it's that it's done through some official process. Trump's raid to grab Maduro killed less than 100 people. Pretty modest by "genocide" standards, and is easily eclipsed by gang/cartel violence. Yet nobody is going after Trump because he didn't meet some kill quota to get special protection, nor are people condoning cartel violence because they killed far more than Trump.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we're talking about concepts and communication, in text, I don't know what meaning of synthesis to apply (as long as there is meaning), other than the meaning this has had for centuries. I think, aggregation, extraction and emulgating is something else. The very purpose of text is to transfer meaning, concepts, observations and complex thoughts to human readers for them to process. And we have built a complex fram…
> I think, aggregation, extraction and emulgating is something else. Aggregating information, extracting underlying concepts, and combining those concepts into a unified expression is indeed the vernacular meaning of "synthesis" applicable to this discussion. "Emulgating" is not a conventional English word. Is it a misspelling of "emulating"? I ask because using the term "emulating" here would again represent an inst…
> AI tools are pure rationalists, and are solely capable of reasoning.
Mind that the world isn't in the language, nor our connection with the world. (We know this for about 120 years, since we expelled the referens from linguistics.) Which brings us back to the synthetic judgement a priori… You may emulate this, as a superficial trait drawn from other traces of communication, but it's not what this is all about. E.g., I wouldn't expect true "lateral thinking" from an LLM output.
> My biggest fear from AI…
I'd add to this, it's not just empirical vs rationalist epistemology, it's also about empathy, anything referring to the conditio humana, which is really what any text is about, even a scientific one (why is it that we do want to know, what are the motivations, the regulating circumstances, etc.?).
There’s a fallacy that gets used a whole lot to justify things like this (not just with LLMs), and I see it in many of the comments here: If it’s OK (or at least negligible on a small scale), then it must be OK on a large scale. It usually goes something like: If I can make money by learning something from a web page, why does a computer making money by learning everything from everyone upset people so? It’s the same…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When did the last original thought happen then? Clearly thoughts must have been original at some point, or there wouldn't be any at all
When did the first homo sapiens exist? Ideas like species evolve. Saying there are no original ideas seems to me an attempt to glibly capture something quite fundamental.
My way of "giving this serious attention" is through pre-registered, falsifiable, repeatable, experimentation, which anyone can look up on osf.io because I use my real name. I'll bet you that non of the randos in this thread do as much.
To all of the randos: unless you have data... it is just an opinion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suppose you are okay with all animated films being impossible to create then. >I obviously like some of those too, but who's to say that the larger budget made them better? If you legitimately believe something like 2001: A Space Odyssey would be as good with a budget of $10,000 then that just seems delusional. The world you want is one in which the only people who can create things are people who are wealthy by ot…
> I suppose you are okay with all animated films being impossible to create then. i quite enjoyed watching some animations made on a $10 budget over winter. www.giraffest.ca that and everything the NFB puts together. Art is worth putting government money into
Sure, if you want to discount the thousands of hours (and dollars) that they spent to get good enough to make those things. People are willing to spent time and money getting good at animation because there is a career pathway for them.
Also there is a fundamental difference between a short experimental art film and a 90+ minute narrative feature film.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that these companies are making money off of it negates your argument.
I don't think anyone's "making money" yet. We have a race to build up hardware for AI, and one to train models. There are some profits in there, but who's making money from the work AI performs? Nobody, because any advantage some company claims with AI is quickly replicated by competitors and profit dries up. Today you can put a coding agent to migrate an existing application to another language (like chardet). Even…
They are indeed taking in money by selling the product. Just because they don’t turn a profit doesn’t mean they’re not infringing copyright as a business practice to make money.
There’s a fallacy that gets used a whole lot to justify things like this (not just with LLMs), and I see it in many of the comments here: If it’s OK (or at least negligible on a small scale), then it must be OK on a large scale. It usually goes something like: If I can make money by learning something from a web page, why does a computer making money by learning everything from everyone upset people so? It’s the same…