ClamDrinker @ ClamDrinker @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

258

Joined

2 yr. ago

No, not what I said at all. If you're trying to say I'm making this argument I'd urge you (ironically) to actually analyze what I said rather than putting words in my mouth ;) (Or just, you know, ask me to clarify)

Copyright infringement (or plagiarism) in it's simplest form, as in just taking the material as is, is devoid of any analysis. The point is to avoid having to do that analysis and just get right to the end result that has value.

But that's not what AI technology does. None of the material used to train it ends up in the model. It looks at the training data and extracts patterns. For text, that is the sentence structure, the likelihood of words being followed by another, the paragraph/line length, the relationship between words when used together, and more. It can do all of this without even 'knowing' what these things are, because they are simply patterns that show up in large amounts of data, and machine learning as a technology is made to be able to detect and extract those patterns. That detection is synonymous with how humans do analysis. What it detects are empirical, factual observations about the material it is shown, which cannot be copyrighted.

The resulting data when fed back to the AI can be used to have it extrapolate on incomplete data, which it could not do without such analysis. You can see this quite easily by asking an AI to refer to you by a specific name, or talk in a specific manner, such as a pirate. It 'understands' that certain words are placeholders for names, and that text can be 'pirateitfied' by adding filler words or pre/suffixing other words. It could not do so without analysis, unless that exact text was already in the data to begin with, which is doubtful.

Yes, this is my exact issue with some framing of AI. Creative people love their influences to the point you can ask them and they will point to parts that they reference or nudged to an influence they partially credit to getting to that result. It's also extremely normal that when you make something new, you brainstorm and analyze any kind of material (copyrighted or not) you can find that gives the same feelings you desire to create. As is ironically said to give comfort to starting creatives that it's okay to be inspired by others: "Good artists copy, great artists steal."

And often people very anti AI don't see an issue with this, yet it is in essence the same as the AI does, which is to detach the work from the ideas it was built on, and then re-using those ideas. And just like anyone who has the ability to create has the ability to plagiarize or infringe, so does the AI. As human users of AI we must be the ones to ethically guide it away from that (Since it can't do that itself), just like you would not copy-paste your influences into a new human made work.

For OpenAI, I really wouldn't be surprised if that happened to be the case, considering they still call themselves "OpenAI" despite being the most censored and closed source AI models on the market.

But my comment was more aimed at AI models in general. If you are assuming they indeed used non-publicly posted or gathered material, and did so directly themselves, they would indeed not have a defense to that. Unfortunately, if a second hand provided them the data, and did so under false pretenses, it would likely let them legally off the hook even if they had every ethical obligation to make sure it was publicly available. The second hand that provided it to them would be the one infringing.

If that assumption turns out to be a truth (Maybe through some kind of discovery in the trial), they should burn for that. Until then, even if it's a justified assumption, it's still an assumption, and most likely not true for most models, certainly not those trained recently.

They are not “analyzing” the data. They are feeding it into a regurgitating mechanism. There’s a big difference. Their defense is only “good” because AI is being misrepresented and misunderstood.

I really kind of hope you're kidding here. Because this has got to be the most roundabout way of saying they're analyzing the information. Just because you think it does so to regurgitate (which I have yet to see any good evidence for, at least for the larger models), does not change the definition of analyzing. And by doing so you are misrepresenting it and showing you might just have misunderstood it, which is ironic. And doing so does not help the cause of anyone who wishes to reduce the harm from AI, as you are literally giving ammo to people to point to and say you are being irrational about it.

You say it's not capable of producing anything new, but then give an example of it creating something new. You just changed the goal from "new" to "valid" in the next sentence. Looking at AI for "valid" information is silly, but looking at it for "new" information is not. Humans do this kind of information mixing all the time. It's why fan works are a thing, and why most creative people have influences they credit with being where they are today.

Nobody alive today isn't tainted by the ideas they've consumed in copyrighted works, but we do not bat an eye if you use that in a transformative manner. And AI already does this transformation much better than humans do since it's trained on that much more information, diluting the pool of sources, which effectively means less information from a single source is used.

Which is why the technology itself isn't the issue, but those willing to use it in unethical ways. AI is an invaluable tool to those with limited means, unlike big corporations.

Not 1:1, overfitted images still have considerable differences to their original. If you chose "reproduce" to make that point, that's why OP clarified it wasn't literally copying training data, as the actual data being in the model would be a different story. Because these models are (in simplified form) a bunch of really complex math that produces material, it's a mathematical inevitability that it produces copyrighted material, even for calculations that weren't created due to overfitting. Just like infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters will eventually reproduce every piece of copyrighted text.

But then I would point you to the camera on your phone. If you take a copyrighted picture with that, you're still infringing. But was the camera created with the intention to appropriate material captured by the lens? Which is why we don't blame the camera for that, we blame the person that used it for that purpose. AI users have an ethical obligation not to steer the AI towards generating infringing material.

Although I'm a firm believer that most AI models should be public domain or open source by default, the premise of "illegally trained LLMs" is flawed. Because there really is no assurance that LLMs currently in use are illegally trained to begin with. These things are still being argued in court, but the AI companies have a pretty good defense in the fact analyzing publicly viewable information is a pretty deep rooted freedom that provides a lot of positives to the world.

The idea of... well, ideas, being copyrightable, should shake the boots of anyone in this discussion. Especially since when the laws on the book around these kinds of things become active topic of change, they rarely shift in the direction of more freedom for the exact people we want to give it to. See: Copyright and Disney.

The underlying technology simply has more than enough good uses that banning it would simply cause it to flourish elsewhere that does not ban it, which means as usual that everyone but the multinational companies lose out. The same would happen with more strict copyright, as only the big companies have the means to build their own models with their own data. The general public is set up for a lose-lose to these companies as it currently stands. By requiring the models to be made available to the public do we ensure that the playing field doesn't tip further into their favor to the point AI technology only exists to benefit them.

If the model is built on the corpus of humanity, then humanity should benefit.

Well, countries with higher birthrates have a third option that is essentially negligible in those with lower birthrates, which is not even making it to adulthood. Effectively still less children end up becoming productive members of society. And together with that, due to less available social services, often a goal of having children survive is so they can take care of the parent when they're older.

As soon as infant mortality becomes a non-factor, birthrates decline drastically as well. And since children are no longer largely seen as a "life assurance" for when parents are older, and the society's demands for productive members is higher as well, the focus really does shift to the quality of the life and the two types of reasons to have kids are harder to compare. But even among developed nations you can see differences in fertility rates.

PS. Scandinavia doesn't have the lowest birth rates, they actually have fairly typical birth rates for more developed regions.

I'm sure such cases exist, but where I'm from people don't really get paid to host turbines, maybe companies at times. They dislike them because it affects the view in the area, and especially if you live very close to them the blades can cause noticeable flickering shadows. That latter point has a lot more weight to it in my eyes, but people do really care about the former as well, and it's kind of hard to push on people when they live there and not you.

There is competition in battery production. Pretty much all of society would be better off with better batteries, so price gauging in an industry like that is quite hard. And if it was, it would not go unnoticed.

The problem is simply the technology. There's advancements like molten salt batteries, but it's practically in it's infancy. The moment a technology like that would become a big improvement over the norm, it would pretty much immediately cause a paradigm shift in energy production and every company would want a piece of the pie. So you'll know it when you see it. But it might also just start off very underwhelmingly like nuclear fusion and very gradually improve with the hope it can scale beyond the current best technologies for batteries.

All we can do is wait and hope for breakthrough, I guess. Because cheap and abundant batteries could really help massively with reducing our carbon output.

2.160 GW is it's rated capacity. I'm not sure how you got from there to 14.2 dollars per watt, but it completely ignores the lifetime of the power plant.

Vogtle 3&4 are really a bad example because unit 4 only entered commercial activity this year. But fine, we can look at what it produces just recently.. About 3335000 MWh per month, or about 107 GWh per day. We can then subtract the baseline from Reactor 1 & 2 from before Reactor 3 was opened, removing about 1700000 MWh per month. Which gives us about 53 GWh per day. The lifetime of them is expected to be around 60 to 80 year, but lets take 60. That's about 1177200 GWh over it's lifetime, divided by the 36 billion that it cost to built... Gives you about 0.03 dollars per kWh. Which is pretty much as good as renewables get as well. But of course, this ignores maintenance, but that's hard to calculate for solar panels as well. As such it will be somewhat larger than 0.03, I will admit.

Solar panels on the other hand, often have a lifetime of 30 years, so even though it costs less per watt, MW, or GW, it also produces less over time. For solar, and wind, that's about the same.. So this doesn't really say much.

But that wasn't even the point of my message. As I said, I agree that Nuclear is slightly more expensive than renewables. But there are other costs associated with renewables that aren't expressed well in monetary value for their units alone. Infrastructure, space, approval, experts to maintain it.

Let’s ignore that no grid in the country actually needs 10hr storage yet.

Because they cannot. They can't do it because there's not enough capacity. If the sun is cloudy for a day, and the wind doesn't run. Who's going to power the grid for a day? That's right. Mostly coal and gas. That's the point. Nuclear is there to ensure we don't go back to fossils when we want to be carbon neutral, which means no output. If you are carbon neutral only when the weather is perfect for renewables, then you're not really carbon neutral and still would have to produce a ton of pollution at times.

I'm glad batteries and all are getting cheaper. They are definitely needed, also for nuclear. But you must also be aware of just how damn dirty they are to produce. The minerals required produce them are rare, and expensive. Wind power also kills people that need to maintain it. Things aren't so black and white.

Also consider that PV and batteries have always gotten cheaper over time, while nuclear has always gotten more expensive.

This is not true, and it should be obvious when you think about it. Since this data fluctuates all the time. Nuclear has been more expensive in the past, before getting cheaper, and now getting more expensive again. Solar and wind have had peaks of being far more expensive than before. These numbers are just a representation of aggregate data, and they often leave out nuance like renewables being favored by regulations and subsidies. They are in part a manifestation of the resistance to nuclear. Unlike renewables, there are many more steps to be made for efficiency in nuclear. Most development has (justifiably) been focused on safety so far, as with solar and wind and batteries we can look away from the slave labor on the other side of the world to produce the rare earth metals needed for it. There is no free lunch in this world.

For what it's purpose should be, which is to provide a baseline production of electricity when renewables are not as effective. A higher price can be justified. It's not meant to replace renewables altogether. Because if renewables can't produce clean energy, their price might as well be infinitely high in that moment, which leaves our only options to be fossil fuels, hydro, batteries, or nuclear. Fossil fuels should be obvious, not everyone has hydro (let alone enough), batteries don't have the capacity or numbers at the scale required (for the foreseeable future), and nuclear is here right now.

Ik dacht dat SGP over het algemeen een respectabele partij waren, maar ze zeggen hier letterlijk gewoon "Yep, accepteer maar wat Isreal hier op dit blaadje zet." in hun motie. Dat is toch te gek voor woorden als het gaat om mensen en organizaties als terroristen markeren? Daar hebben we toch onze eigen veiligheidsdiensten voor om dat soort beslissingen te onderbouwen? Niet klakkeloos over nemen van een land dat een gigantisch conflict van interesse heeft om kritiek de mond te snoeren en mensenrechten veel minder serieus neemt.

Ja wat er in Amsterdam gebeurt is, is ver weg van acceptabel. Maar laten we niet doen alsof er niet gezonde mensen zijn die niet heel vrolijk worden van Isreal's manier van dingen doen.

In mijn ogen niet anders dan Erdogan die hier of in Duitsland vraagt om hier iemand te veroordelen of uit te leveren omdat ze online wat gemene woorden over hem zeggen. Kom maar met bewijs dat het hier illegaal is, en dan kunnen we verder praten, tot dan, rot op met je ongefundeerde inmenging.

Solar and wind are cheaper yes. Batteries, no. If batteries were that cheap and easy to place we'd have solved energy a long time ago. Currently batteries don't hold a candle to live production, the closest you can get is hydro storage, which not everyone has, and can't realistically be built everywhere.

Look at the stats. The second largest battery storage in the US (and the world) is located near the Moss Landing Power Plant. It provides a capacity of 3000 MWh with 6000 MWh planned (Which would make it the largest). That sounds like a lot, but it's located next to San Jose and San Fransisco, so lets pick just one of those counties to compare. The average energy usage in the county of San Clara, which contains San Jose (You might need to VPN from the US to see the source) is 17101 GWh per year, which is about 46.8 GWh per day, or 46800 MWh. So you'd need 8 more of those at 6000 MWh to even be able to store a day's worth of electricity from that county alone, which has a population of about 2 million people. And that's not even talking about all the realities that come with electricity like peak loads.

For reference, the largest hydro plant has a storage capacity of 40 GWh, 6.6x more (at 6000 MWh above).

Relative to how much space wind and solar use, nuclear is the clear winner. If a country doesn't have massive amounts of empty area nuclear is unmissable. People also really hate seeing solar and wind farm. That's not something I personally mind too much, but even in the best of countries people oppose renewables simply because it ruins their surroundings to them. Creating the infrastructure for such distributed energy networks to sustain large solar and wind farms is also quite hard and requires personnel that the entire world has shortages of, while a nuclear reactor is centralized and much easier to set up since it's similar to current power plants. But a company that can build a nuclear plant isn't going to be able to build a solar farm, or a wind farm, and in a similar way if every company that can make solar farms or wind farms is busy, their price will go up too. By balancing the load between nuclear, solar, and wind, we ensure the transition can happen as fast and affordable as possible.

There's also the fact that it always works and can be scaled up or down on demand, and as such is the least polluting source (on the same level as renewables) that can reliably replace coal, natural gas, biomass, and any other always available source. You don't want to fall back on those when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. If batteries were available to store that energy it'd be a different story. But unless you have large natural batteries like hydro plants with storage basins that you can pump water up to with excess electricity, it's not sustainable. I'd wish it was, but it's not. As it stands now, the world needs both renewables and nuclear to go fully neutral. Until something even better like nuclear fusion becomes viable.

The time will come, you can slowly see the tide turning :) Most people aren't inherently against it, just (understandably) cautious, and at worst misinformed or radicalized about hating it.

What really helps is to start with showing something you really put your heart into, where you can explain your choices and techniques, before you tell them it was done with (help from) AI. There was a recent study where people actually seemed to prefer works made with AI, until they were told it was made by AI and not a person. This just shows there is an AI-bias under people, and being able to show that whatever you're making was in fact largely a product of your creativity, not the AI's, really helps.

I tend to make recordings and snapshots of work in progress and then turn that into one of those animations that blends frame to frame to show the entire process. Just being able to show that it wasn't just doing nothing yourself and that it's still your creation really helps make people understand.

People differentiate AI (the technology) from AI (the product being peddled by big corporations) without making clear that nuance (Or they mean just LLMs, or they aren't even aware the technology has a grassroots adoption outside of those big corporations). It will take time, and the bubble bursting might very well be a good thing for the technology into the future. If something is only know for it's capitalistic exploits it'll continue to be seen unfavorably even when it's proven it's value to those who care to look at it with an open mind. I read it mostly as those people rejoicing over those big corporations getting shafted for their greedy practices.

Not sure why you think I have blind faith? I've got blind faith in no one. Least of all the american voter lol.

Stop trying to force your interpretation on my words, it's not what I said, period. I'm not limiting my scope to two choices. The US constitution does that for the matter of what party is in office. There are very obvious other choices, and most of them call for massive human suffering like civil war or political violence, which I'm not going to iterate on for obvious reasons. Nowhere do I deny the existence of those choices, I'm just presenting the obvious conclusion of trying to change the system in a peaceful manner.

Not that optimistically (And realistically, not common sense either apparently), but yes, it's a potential path. And a peaceful one, among a multitude of bloody ones.

I'm not expecting anything, And I never said they had to do anything. Who would be expecting any kind of logical reasoning from US voters after this result. I said "If you want to" = "In order to get a desirable outcome, this is potentially the only way to do so.", not "Everyone must do this because I say so"