• rumba@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Counter counterpoint: I don’t know, I think making an exception for tech companies probably gives a minor advantage to consumers at least.

    You can still go to copilot and ask it for some pretty fucking off the wall python and bash, it’ll save you a good 20 minutes of writing something and it’ll already be documented and generally best practice.

    Sure the tech companies are the one walking away with billions of dollars and it presumably hurts the content creators and copyright holders.

    The problem is, feeding AI is not significantly different than feeding Google back in the day. You remember back when you could see cached versions of web pages. And hell their book scanning initiative to this day is super fucking useful.

    If you look at how we teach and train artists. And then how those artists do their work. All digital art and most painting these days has reference art all over the place. AI is taking random noise and slowly making things look more like the reference art that’s not wholly different than what people are doing.

    We’re training AI on every book that people can get their hands on, But that’s how we train people too.

    I say that training an AI is not that different than training people, and the entire content of all the copyright they look at in their lives doesn’t get a chunk of the money when they write a book or paint something that looks like the style of Van Gogh. They’re even allowed to generate content for private companies or for sale.

    What is different, is that the AI is very good at this and has machine levels of retention and abilities. And companies are poised to get rich off of the computational work. So I’m actually perfectly down with AI’s being trained on copyrighted materials as long as they can’t recite it directly and in whole, But I feel the models that are created using these techniques should also be in the public domain.

    • melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      giving an exception to tech companies gives an advantage to consumers

      No. shut the fuck up. these companies are anti human and only exist to threaten labor and run out the clock on climate change so we all die without a revolution and the billionaires flee to the bunkers they’re convinced will save them (they won’t, closed systems are doomed). it’s an existential threat. this is so obvious, I’m agreeing with fucking yudkowsky, of all fucking people-he is correct, if for entirely wrong nonsense reasons.

      good for writing code

      so, I have tried to use it for that. nothing I have ever asked it for was remotely fit for purpose, often referring to things like libraries that straight up do not exist. it might be fine if it can quote a long thing from stack exchange from a program anyone who’s been coding for a decade has ten versions of laying around in their home folder, but if you want a piece of code that does something particular, it’s worse than useless. not even as a guide.

      AI

      HOLY SHIT WE HAVE AI NOW!? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN!? can I talk to it? or do you just mean large language models?

      there’s some benefit in these things regurgitating art

      tell me you don’t understand a single thing about how these models work, and don’t understand a single thing about the value meaning or utility of art, without saying “I don’t understand a single thing about how these models work, and don’t understand a single thing about the value meaning or utility of art.”.