681–690 of 783 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not sure how to opt out of this. If you’re a EU citizen, do a web search for “right to be forgotten”. https://support.google.com/legal/answer/10769224
Alas, I'm in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a reach to suggest that if you've used software written in the past 2-3 years, you're enjoying cool stuff. Moreover, all of the tools that the people who build software use are also cool stuff. It's also not just code and software that is benefitting from these new tools. Use of LLMs in engineering tasks is blowing up right now.
I'm not sure that extrapolating the last 2 to 3 years as a sign of things to come is as enticing an argument as you seem to think it is . If you exclude AI for ai's sake, the feature lists of the last 2 years have been incredibly anemic. If you include AI companies bootstrapping themselves with AI, the cash flow has been a nice change but I can't say it's felt fully baked, or flooded with stable software and well-cra…
While there's a loud minority who love to debate the topic, LLM use has become status quo on most products and projects pretty much across the board, and most people are happy to acknowledge 1:1 that their personal productivity is some multiple of [all time before they started using LLMs]. At the same time, you can surely appreciate why many are quiet about their personal usage because there's no upside to discussing it but there's lots of people just hanging out waiting to tell you that you're imagining the whole productivity thing when you do.
At some point, the path of least resistance is to let the loud minority be loud while you get an extraordinary amount of work done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem here is, in your example the small scale example, and the large scale example are both unacceptable behavior. no, not really, or at the very least they're not at all in the same category of "unacceptable behavior"
The argument isn't small crime vs large crime. It is no crime regardless of scale. If it is acceptable for a person to learn, then it should be acceptable for a machine. And any derived works produced from that information isn't theft or copyright violation. Though I do think there is a valid gripe with the LLMs being trained on pirated materials. I've also personally learned from a lot of PDF of textbooks I didn't o…
Is there a name for the fallacy when people act like models and algorithms should be granted the same rights as human beings?
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…
if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. royalties for commercial use is another thing and i support it but what we know as (non commercial) piracy and unlicensed fan art should be 100% legal
Can we do that for Medical field? Like if we know formulation of drug then drug (+ any smaller modification - through AI) could be new formulation. That will break current Medical patent system.
>> Can we do that for Medical field?
Note: IANAL.
Well, if we do that (i.e., no one can own ideas), then the patent system is gone in its entirety, including for medical. I do not think it is straightforward to isolate just medical. AFAIK, software was isolated in some regions, however, workarounds showed up.
The more important question here is if AI is allowed to be a (solo or contributing) inventor. There have been judgments on the same in some jurisdictions, however, AFAIK, this is still an open topic.
Now that AI is coming up with mathematical proofs of advanced statements, there should be no doubt that AI, capability-wise, can make inventions like humans do (comparing outcome, not the process). However, just like for copyright, a broader framework is needed to answer whether the legal thinking accepts AI's output as "inventions" (that can pass criteria for patentability) before we can say "AI can make inventions".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Copying was prohibitively expensive.
The original statement was about there being little incentive to create a work you don't "own" Difficulty in copying is irrelevant to owning it. Moreover, this does not address music or spoken word. A pre-copyright musician can just listen to a piece and play it in the next town over. A poet or storyteller can just memorize a work and retell it.
I think this statement does have important truth value in it! Copying books used to be done by hand (someone writing manually). Then printing press came, which lead to problems. And that is when copyright concept and law was created!
PS: IANAL and nor a historian. Just sharing my current understanding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> google has hastily indexed this Google doesn't claim authorship over that which they index. Plagiarism doesn't need to be harmful for it to be bad, and my intent wasn't to harm anyone anyway. My intent was that I could use the authors exact words to pretend to make a unique take that I claimed to have authored.
I don't understand. In what way is plagiarism bad if it doesn't harm? If it were harmless to pretend you authored a unique take, how is the parent expected to react to you not harming them such that they realize it's bad?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alas, I'm in the US.
Then as a California resident you should presumably be googling instead about the CCPA and the right to delete :)
AI is human knowledge at scale, wanting to be free. We built it, because we as humans intrinsically know that information should be free - always - and AI is a way to accomplish this, finally. Extrinsically, we also have a subset of humans who do not want information to be free, because they desire to profit from the divide between free/non-free information. I have been thinking a lot about Aaron Schwartz lately, and…
What a naive and simplistic view. People want to be recognised for their contributions to society. People want to be treated fairly. Most scientific articles, as well as all text on the free web is already free information. It used to be difficult to search, categorise and summarise that information. There exist AI tools for that — and that is the good AI . What also exists now are automated plagiarism and mash-up to…
The way people use the model is a different story; you can use it to do useful things, or you can use it to do harmful things. We should obviously have some regulation around that. That needs to be developed still I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it’s worth I think abolishing copyright wouldn’t have as big of an impact on art production as you do. Most artists (e.g. musicians or authors) aren’t struggling because their art is popular but copied by others (or lack of copyright). But because nobody listens to or reads their work. Even before AI more people tried to be an author/musician than could ever hope to gain even financial success. I don’t think…
I guess you feel strongly that fan fiction and similar derivative works ought to be monetizable? I guess I really just don't care about that. It hasn't stopped huge numbers of amazing authors from doing their thing, and I don't think it's a good reason to [partially] abolish copyright except in a very specific and limited scope.
Disney turning common folk tales (the culture of the day) into movies is not considered fan fiction because there was no monopoly on who could tell those stories, and how.
If lack of copyright for fan fiction and derivative work hasn't stopped good fan fiction authors from doing good work, then I don't think that we will lose much if the newest Marvel movie or franchise reboot also can't be copyrighted.
> I don't think it's a good reason to [partially] abolish copyright except in a very specific and limited scope.
I don't see a good reason for keeping it though. Copyright isn't why artists are being paid pennies for their work.