611–620 of 769 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Models are a device capable of producing protected content given some input contortions. So are Xerox machines.
If I Xerox'd a book and sold copies to people I'm clearly violating copyright. I'm not sure I follow.
I am beginning to think that in these discussions these models are functioning more like an obscuring factor than anything else and the discussion is getting bogged down in that, and not the crux of the argument. They’re giving people plausible deniability in the “chain of responsibility”, and I think if we took away “LLM” and replaced it with “fairground sideshow magic box” the argument that LLM’s are somehow specia…
I agree, and I would prefer to see concrete examples of LLMs being used productively and profitably in the industry in a "disruptive" manner--putting people out of work, etc--before we conclude they're somehow the next big thing. Basically, before claiming LLMs (or generative techniques, more generally) mean that we're on the doorstep of "general" intelligence, show me door! The outline of that door might look like i…
I think you're right.
I am a programmer and I use GPT occasionally, and I even pay 20 bucks a month (for now), but even for my job it's not a not a world-shattering improvement.
> ... the entertainment value of typing things into the box and seeing what comes out ...
I would only add that in a consumer society like ours, entertainment is important. Changes to entertainment seem to have, like, weird ripple effects. Not the knock-down economic disruptions that AI is promising, but I kind of think LLMs are just going to make our culture weirder. I can't anticipate how, but having a bunch of little LLM-powered daemons buzzing around the internet is just gonna be freaky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
wow and incredible amount of things need to go right for artists to do well in your world ?
I too would love to earn a living by pursuing my hobbies. Too bad, I'm not in the 0,001-0,1%
This is an unsophisticated view because it looks at a risk/reward scenario and assigns zero value to the risk.
The risk has value - regardless of the success, or reward.
Put another way: you don't get to discount the risk to zero when it results in a large reward.
Entities that took no risks and received enormous rewards (like President George W. Bush involvement in the Texas Rangers[1]) are probably quite pleased that you ignore them and focus on artists that sacrifice traditional life scripts (an enormous risk) and, very rarely, achieve great success.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_life_of_George_W....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh come on. Copyright is a fairly ancient concept that benefits normal people as much as it benefits big corporations. Most book authors, songwriters, and so on aren't fat cats, and they would be harmed if we had zero protections for the duplication of their work. They'd need to depend on state sponsorship or charitable private patronage, both of which are problematic for obvious reasons and limit the range of artist…
This is full of so many inaccuracies. > Copyright is a fairly ancient concept The idea is fairly old, but it's current implementation in law is not nearly that old. > that benefits normal people as much as it benefits big corporations Clearly false if you measure that benefit in monetary terms. > Copyright is usually interpreted fairly narrowly, and doesn't prevent you from creating inspired works, or retelling the s…
Scale.
GenAI automates creation of things that are derived from but strictly aren't the same as the original content; as it's (currently) not possible to automate the detection of derivative works (which is something copyright is supposed to be about), this means actual humans have to look at each case, and that's expensive and time consuming and O(n*m) on n new works that have to be compared against m existing in-copyright works for infringement.
I also think copyright is too long, FWIW; but the way most people discuss arts, I think humans can be grouped into "I just want nice stuff" and "I want to show off how cultured I am", and the latter will never accept GenAI even if it's an upload of the brain of their favourite artist, simply because when it becomes easy it loses value. I'm in camp "nice stuff".
The responsibility for ensuring that copyrights were not violated fall on the person publishing the work. Whether they drew something themselves, hired an apprentice artists with no legal training to draw something, took a photograph of something, or used AI to create an image should not matter. Why does anyone assume that ChatGPT or other tools would NOT produce previously-copyrighted content? I can see a naive assu…
So it makes generative AI essentially unusable, because you don't know if the output is plagiarism or not, so you'd just doubt it always and never use it.
Its game over folks. And this is going to happen with or without our approval and any government that limits the potential use of this is only giving nations that dont a large economic advantage.
Interesting times ahead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Apple didn’t just copy all the music onto iPods and sell it — it took them a decade of deal making and lots of money to acquire the rights to the content I recaly iPod being a hard drive that I could connect to a computer and just copy music directly to.
Pretty sure it was never like that, it was always gated by iTunes. It was an integrated system, not an open one. Definitely is today. It's difficult to copy mp3 files directly to an iPhone and play them. Even from a Mac, but even more so from a PC or Linux. I bet less than 1% of iPhone and iPad users do that. They mostly pay for streaming. (Again, not saying that's better, but just that the general public doesn't do…
Then you need to recalibrate your certainty assessment. Not only did I do this personally with both music and videos, it is incredibly easy to find documentation of the steps. First google result: https://www.alphr.com/add-music-to-ipod-without-itunes/
Apple's ipod sales absolutely benefited significantly from music piracy. Especially early on when nobody hard large itunes collections yet and music torrents were much more common.
The genius of the ipod / itunes play is that they got to do both. They benefited from the demand from people with non-itunes libraries, while also offering a low friction sales platform that was easier than piracy.
I did an interesting thing and looked at how well the Llama2 models could compress text. For example, I took the first chapter of the first Harry Potter book and recorded the index of the 'correct' predicted token. The original text, compressed with 7zip (LZMA?) to about 14kB. The Llama2 encoded indexes compressed to less than 1kB. Then, of course, I can send that 1kB file around and decode the original text. (Unless…
Couldn't you use the same argument to reach the absurd conclusion that the 7zip source code contains the vast majority of Harry Potter? A decent control would be to compare it to similar prose that you know for a fact is not in the training data (e.g. because it was written afterwards).
You're right that a better baseline could be made using books not in the training set, to understand how much is the model learning prose and how much is learning a specific book.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is full of so many inaccuracies. > Copyright is a fairly ancient concept The idea is fairly old, but it's current implementation in law is not nearly that old. > that benefits normal people as much as it benefits big corporations Clearly false if you measure that benefit in monetary terms. > Copyright is usually interpreted fairly narrowly, and doesn't prevent you from creating inspired works, or retelling the s…
> How? The restrictions on selling images of Mickey Mouse exist regarless of if they were created with or without AI assistance. Scale. GenAI automates creation of things that are derived from but strictly aren't the same as the original content; as it's (currently) not possible to automate the detection of derivative works (which is something copyright is supposed to be about), this means actual humans have to look…
For that matter, Photoshop has made art creation so easy, that we dont need GenAI to be swiming in more copyright infringement than we know what to do with.
There is absurd amounts of content being created, no human will ever be able to see it all.
Copyright will continue to work - if someone creates a rip off so popular that it becomes an issue for copyright holders, the DMCA and the rest of the tools they forced into the fabric of the net still exist.
A few steps furhter down this argument, you get back to deep packet inspection, and the rest of the copyright wars which ended up making life worse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the real test of all this stuff is "what can I use it for?". And I can sort my own socks, so that's not super compelling ;). More seriously, the real world is complex. Let's say I want to replace the forklift operator at my local lumberyard with a robot forklift that can ostensibly outperform a human employee. Even if there is some magical AI program which could theoretically drive the forklift around, identify…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox This is an issue of 'mechanical intelligence' being hundreds of millions of years old and 'higher intelligence' being pretty new on the evolutionary spectrum. And the AGI will keep you around as a dexterous 'robot' while supervising your thoughts to make sure you're keeping in line I guess, while day after day cranking out more capable robots in which to replace you w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they can be forced to destroy or retrain their models without any copyright materials for which they don't have or do not now attain licenses for. These are multi-billion/trillion dollar companies. They can afford to be responsible members of society here, however much their shareholders and C-suite might hate it.
Those weights are never coming out of the BitTorrent network though.
The existence of widespread illegal means to procure something doesn't mean that we don't and shouldn't require legitimate businesses to abide by the law or require them to make amends for their current transgressions.