91–100 of 309 posts
open source it on IPFS and walk away, maybe call it something else and just drop the hashes on 4chan anonymously this reaction deserves the inevitable, as his only problem was it being attributed to him
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Fair use" only applies to instances of copying / redistributing . The hint is in the name: copy -right. There's a notion, which seems to have taken off among creators who are paranoid about AI eating their livelihoods (which it might eat a chunk of) that copyright prevents people from doing anything with works they [legally] acquired other than personally read, listen, or watch it. That's not how copyright, as it ha…
Say I make a tool where you can enter the title of a book, and get the full text of the book without paying for it. I assume we all agree that would be illegal, right? Now say that instead of distributing that tool as an executable , I distributed it as a library . It would contain all the same books as the illegal executable above, but some developers would need to write an actual executable that would use the libra…
That said, it is still an open question if the content generated by LLM is illegal. It only generates content that is inspired by some authors work, it is not recreating their work, only their style. Humans copy each other all the time in writing, music, art, you name it.
If you want to do this kind of thing, let authors opt-in (or publishers). Yes, it will take effort and probably go slow, but if the tool is really useful and amazing, it should be doable. I suspect the authors are put-off by a couple things: - the text of the works scanned seems like it may be from pirated sources. That poisons the project, no matter what it does with the scans, for many authors. - the use of these s…
Going off of some of the tweets about this that initially whipped up the outrage about this…it’s not like they were making a nuanced case about their concerns, they were basically just stomping their feet and shouting.
its sad he took the site down, it looks like a neat project. it seems to be fair use, so it really is just an issue of consent and keeping people happy. the issue is some people will always be fearful/miserable. should the rest of us be held back in exploring culture because they refuse to play? anyway i'm sure there will be ten other similar sites by the end of the week...
“That book’s vividness score (TM) is 75% opposed to that other book’s vividness score (TM) which is only 50%! That’s, like, a 50% higher culture score (TM)!”
BTW do you write per hand or type writer or do you use word processors with formatting, thesaurus, spell and grammar checking?
I’m with the artists on this one. Our obsession with converting everything into input for an algorithm that spits out an ill-defined number (what the hell is “vividness”?) needs to stop. We already tried this with human communication and gave birth to the dystopian nightmare that is social media, why keep repeating our mistakes?
The better an LLM can complete your joke the worse it is, for instance. Important to have a good Letterman-MacDonald quotient.
Quite apart from any content/copywrite issues, this wasn't a useful tool. It was a badly-made tool that didn't identify anything valid or worthwhile. The measurement of passive voice is a particularly clear example: that's not what passive voice is at all, and anyone who understands passive voice knows that it shouldn't be frowned upon [1]. "Just add tech" is not a recipe for usefulness. [1] http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We repeat the mistakes because in the short term, someone finds it profitable, hence a prisoner's dilemma type situation. If an AI tool was killed, I consider it a victory. That's because even if there are some small useful applications of AI, AI on the whole will certainly put most creatives out of business. Instead, I propose the following: anyone who is interested in preventing AI from taking over their craft shou…
Without trying to sound flippant - what do you define AI as? Things like autofocus in your video cameras or automatic gain control or noise cancellation in your audio pipeline could also be considered AI. Do you remove those too? What about the AI recommendation algorithm built into YouTube - how do you reconcile being AI free while still using that platform?
However, for practical purposes, a direct definition that encompasses every situation is not necessary, but can evolve. For now, I think we do not need a precise definition and we can start with the following: AI such as ChatGPT, LLMs, image generation tools like DALL-E and ohters, should be restricted.
As for YouTube's algorithm, I agree it is also dangerous. For now, I have restricted the use of direct content generation algorithms, in other words, all content can reasonably said to be human generated in terms of writing, composition, etc.
In other words: AI that makes any creative decision in making content should be banned. Other algorithms should be carefully debated.
I honestly don't understand how people can refuse the idea of that some parts most certainly can be reviewed with the help of a computer. There wasn't a "how good is this book" score because a computer might not be able to tell that yet, I don't understand the issue in looking at the number of adverbs in a book with the help of a computer.
I think that authors see an issue with their IP being fed to an algorithmic black box that will certainly make a lot of money, but authors won't see any of it, and for which engineers say "don't worry, it is not stealing your IP, just let us make money the way we want and shut up".
What if OpenAI could prove that their algorithms are not stealing IP? I think it's easy: they just can't. They don't even formally know what their algorithm can and cannot do.
If I was an author or an artist, I would most definitely want a new kind of legal way to make sure that if I don't want my work to be used as training data, then it most definitely isn't. Of course that's not really possible, because who can audit the algorithmic black box and see if my work was used in the training?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We repeat the mistakes because in the short term, someone finds it profitable, hence a prisoner's dilemma type situation. If an AI tool was killed, I consider it a victory. That's because even if there are some small useful applications of AI, AI on the whole will certainly put most creatives out of business. Instead, I propose the following: anyone who is interested in preventing AI from taking over their craft shou…
Without trying to sound flippant - what do you define AI as? Things like autofocus in your video cameras or automatic gain control or noise cancellation in your audio pipeline could also be considered AI. Do you remove those too? What about the AI recommendation algorithm built into YouTube - how do you reconcile being AI free while still using that platform?