Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI Data Laundering

waxy.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: AI Data Laundering

#71

Post by boppo1 »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #60
nine_k wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’m not an economist, but I would suggest that human ingenuity can find a way to make something along those lines work. 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?

The sum of all welfare isn't half of what UBI would cost.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#72

Post by nightski »

echelon wrote: post #28
nightski wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well a toddler isn’t making money off the information they are absorbing for one. If these are open to the public models that is one thing. But no, these are proprietary models whose sole purpose is to make money for large corporations.

Artists and engineers do exactly this. It just takes a decade.

They are taking your code verbatim and injecting it into numerous code bases around the world violating the license while getting paid for it?

Re: AI Data Laundering

#73

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

boppo1 wrote: post #71
9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not an economist, but I would suggest that human ingenuity can find a way to make something along those lines work. 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?

The sum of all welfare isn't half of what UBI would cost.

Perhaps, as the parent commenter suggested, we need a Universal Safety Net, then, instead of a strict UBI.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#74

Post by boppo1 »

echelon wrote: post #6
moyix wrote: post #3

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…

>No longer do we need to pay 20,000 hours to learn one thing to the exclusion of all others we would like to try. Now we'll be able to clearly articulate ourselves with art, music, poetry. We'll become powerful beings of thought and expression.

I'm a 20000 hours person. Knowing what I know about what I do, it's real sad to see someone misunderstand what goes into creativity this egregiously. Prompt engineering is such an unbelievably watered down "version" of making a painting. It's like writing a page, or even a folder! of bullet points and handing it to a ghostwriter, then telling them "put the end result between Shakespeare and Poe".

That's not unleashing your creative voice. Unleashing your voice and acquiring technical skills in a chosen field are the same. If you endlessly mixed all the prior classical works, it doesn't matter how you weight them, it won't spit out Mozart. You're stuck in the gamut of the model, between the maxima points of each artist.

It's an incredible tool to generate stuff quickly, and to some extent it will help artists whose work depends on quantity over quality.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#75

Post by boppo1 »

echelon wrote: post #25
numpad0 wrote: post #21

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.

Picasso was a hack, and it's reflected in that quote of his.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#76

Post by knome »

heavyset_go wrote: post #50
jstanley wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's good! Acting like it's a bad thing is just ludditery.

The Luddites weren't some cult of ignorant technophobes, they were highly-skilled middle class craftsmen and small business owners who went from being able to provide for their families to dying in utter destitution. The remainder of them were tried for machine breaking and were either executed by the state or exiled to penal colonies. They risked everything because everything was at stake, I have a hard time saying…

Certainly, but automation is what allows for improvement to the whole.

Today, clothing is cheap and plentiful, along with bedding, curtains, towels and other cloth materials. Clothing would be outrageously expensive if everything were still hand spun, hand loomed, hand cut, hand sewn, and hand screened.

If the human computers[1] that predated the rise of the machine computer had done the same and won, it would have certainly been a boon for them at the time as well, but to the loss of all information technology developed hence.

The lack of a social safety net lent desperation to the luddites. Had they not faced imminent ruin and starvation as the machines eclipsed their occupation, they may not have had need to rebel against the newly emerging textiles mechanization.

AI may eventually replace traditional artists in many situations. Surely with simple images today, we can expect video examples in the future, and interactive AI generated simulations some time after that.

Do we smash the data centers now to save the artists' livelihoods and thereby avoid a future where anyone that wants can talk a computer through creating entire interactive fictional worlds via the synthesis of AI generation with feedback from their imagination?

[1] referring here to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)

Re: AI Data Laundering

#77

Post by kevingadd »

alar44 wrote: post #46
killjoywashere wrote: post #13

> It’s currently unclear if training deep learning models on copyrighted material is a form of infringement What? It's clearly a derived work.

Alright, then every piece of music you've ever heard is also a derived work. Unless the composer grew up in a void.

I think you're trying to be ridiculous, but lawsuits of that sort do come up periodically - accusations of composition theft that in practice are probably not theft and just the fact that there aren't THAT many unique note progressions you can put into a song, and it's not that odd for a composer to accidentally imitate something they heard a long time ago when picking one.

Re: AI Data Laundering

#78

Post by natch »

9wzYQbTYsAIc wrote: post #56
natch wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if a particular convolution appears often, how would you assign value to that? Any ideas?

Indeed, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33194623 for some initial thoughts on how this problem (and others) could be rectified

So, an AI Karen?

>the generative AI system censors any output containing a category of error

I can see the ruleset now…

"This picture of a woman is revealing hair, so it must be censored because it is objectionable to some people and we must respect all people whose beliefs are guided in a sanctioned way."

"This picture shows unadulterated fun, which must be censored because…"

etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFe9wiDfb0E

Re: AI Data Laundering

#79

Post by lachlan_gray »

gfd wrote: post #51

Was this term coined on HN? I remember first seeing it (used in an AI context) from this 2019 comment under "Cool stuff that's still completely unregulated": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21167689 Most of the predictions in that first comment came true.

William Gibson mentions data laundering as an illicit activity in the Neuromancer books! It’s plausible that the phrase itself was coined there

Re: AI Data Laundering

#80

Post by lolinder »

kevingadd wrote: post #77
alar44 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, then every piece of music you've ever heard is also a derived work. Unless the composer grew up in a void.

I think you're trying to be ridiculous, but lawsuits of that sort do come up periodically - accusations of composition theft that in practice are probably not theft and just the fact that there aren't THAT many unique note progressions you can put into a song, and it's not that odd for a composer to accidentally imitate something they heard a long time ago when picking one.

How does AI change the playing field here? Accidental infringement is a thing either way, and the creator should be careful to avoid accidental infringement regardless of whether they're using an AI to do the creation.
Post reply on HN