bioemerl @ bioemerl @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

464

Joined

2 yr. ago

This is hardly a back door.

I literally said it wasn't in my comment, it's evidence of how easy it is to put one in down the line despite the fact this is open source software.

I literally said this wasn't in my comment. This is evidence of how easy it is to sneak in a back door.

One is a step to the other.

Closed source software isn't going to be available to AI scrapers, so this only really affects open source projects and open data, exactly the sort of people who should have more protection.

The point of open source is contributing to the crater all of humanity. If open source contributes to an AI which can program, and that programming AI leads to increased productivity and ability in the general economy then open source has served its purpose, and people will likely continue to contribute to it.

Creative of Commons applies to when you redistribute code. (In the ideal case) AI does not redistribute code, it learns from it.

And the increased ability to program by the average person will allow programmers to be more productive and as a result allow more things to be open source and more things to be programmed in general. We will all benefit, and that is what open source is for.

No, I don't know how to solve the problem.

It's really not hard, You just push for regulations. Problem is, people like their junk food so they are almost always against regulations against it.

We are a democracy at the end of the day and taking away people's favorite foods is going to cause politicians to get voted out of office, even if it's better for them.

I can vouch for the horde, it's addicting to watch your little point counter go up after you've put something out there and seeing people use something you are hosting.

It's awesome to put a computer out onto the internet and have real life people getting real benefit within minutes. This is a way you can do it, and there's so much demand that you are helping people by putting your machine out there.

However, I will give you a fair warning, it will be used for porn. Not entirely, but it will happen.

Under modern food production systems that are entirely for profit we have had less famine in the world than any prior generation and especially far less famine in the world than in any communist nation that has tried to go and produce food without profit motives.

Ideas like this one will lead far more people to starve.

It's incredibly convenient for companies.

Big companies like open AI can easily afford to download big data sets from companies like Reddit and deviantArt who already have the permission to freely use whatever work you upload to their website.

Individual creators do not have that ability and the act of doing this regulation will only force AI into the domain of these big companies even more than it already is.

Regulation would be a hideously bad idea that would lock these powerful tools behind the shitty web APIs that nobody has control over but the company in question.

Imagine the world is the future, magical new age technology, and Facebook owns all of it.

Do not allow that to happen.

Yeah it is. The only protection in copyright is called derivative works, and an AI is not a derivative of a book, No more than your brain is after you've read one.

The only exception would be if you manage to overtrain and encode the contents of the book inside of the model file. That's not what happened here because I'll chat GPT output was a summary.

The only valid claim here is the fact that the books were not supposed to be on the public internet and it's likely that the way open AI the books in the first place was through some piracy website through scraping the web.

At that point you just have to hold them liable for that act of piracy, not the fact that the model release was an act of copyright violation.

Scraping the web is legal and training AI on data is also legal.

It is 100% legal and common to sell summaries of books to people. That's what a reviewer does. That's what Wikipedia does in the plot section of literally every Wikipedia page about every book.

This is also ignoring the fact that Chat GPT is a hell of a lot more than a bunch of summaries

Yeah, they want the right only to protect who copies their work and distributes it to other people, but who's able to actually read and learn from their work.

It's asinine and we should be rolling back copy right, not making it more strict. This 70 year plus the life of the author thing is bullshit.

Yeah. There are valid copyright claims because there are times that chat GPT will reproduce stuff like code line for line over 10 20 or 30 lines which is really obviously a violation of copyright.

However, just pulling in a story from context and then summarizing it? That's not a copyright violation that's a book report.

What laws are you saying they've broken?

While yes something else is going to move to the top, it's still awesome to play with it today you should because it's really important to see people learning how to run this stuff at home

Yes, Microsoft exerting this sort of control over their operating system does deeply concern me which is why i switched to Linux and you should too