This is an issue for the AI user though. And I do agree that needs to be more conscious in people’s minds. But I think time will change that. Perhaps when the photo camera came out there were some shmucks that took pictures of people’s artworks and claimed it as their own because the novelty of the technology allowed that for a bit, but eventually those people are properly differentiated from people properly using it.
Like if I download a textbook to read for a class instead of buying it - I could be proscecuted for stealing
Ehh, no almost certainly not (But it does depend on your local laws). But that honestly just sounds like some corporate boogyman to prevent you from pirating their books. The person hosting the download, if they did not have the rights to publicize it freely, would possibly be prosecuted though.
To illustrate, there’s this story of John Cena who sold a special Ford after signing a contract with Ford to explicitly forbid him from doing that. However, the person who bought the car was never prosecuted or sued, because they received the car from Cena with no strings attached. They couldn’t be held responsible for Cena’s break of contract, but Cena was held personally responsible by Ford.
For physical goods there is ‘theft by proxy’ though (receiving stolen goods that you know are most likely stolen), but that quite certainly doesn’t apply to digital, copyable goods. As to even access any kind of information on the internet, you have to download and thus, copy it.
That would be true if they used material that was paywalled. But the vast majority of the training information used is publicly available. There’s plenty of freely available books and information that you only require an internet connection for to access, and learn from.
Your first point is misguided and incorrect. If you’ve ever learned something by ‘cramming’, a.k.a. just repeating ingesting material until you remember it completely. You don’t need the book in front of you anymore to write the material down verbatim in a test. You still discarded your training material despite you knowing the exact contents. If this was all the AI could do it would indeed be an infringement machine. But you said it yourself, you need to trick the AI to do this. It’s not made to do this, but certain sentences are indeed almost certain to show up with the right conditioning. Which is indeed something anyone using an AI should be aware of, and avoid that kind of conditioning. (Which in practice often just means, don’t ask the AI to make something infringing)
This would be a good point, if this is what the explicit purpose of the AI was. Which it isn’t. It can quote certain information verbatim despite not containing that data verbatim, through the process of learning, for the same reason we can.
I can ask you to quote famous lines from books all day as well. That doesn’t mean that you knowing those lines means you infringed on copyright. Now, if you were to put those to paper and sell them, you might get a cease and desist or a lawsuit. Therein lies the difference. Your goal would be explicitly to infringe on the specific expression of those words. Any human that would explicitly try to get an AI to produce infringing material… would be infringing. And unknowing infringement… well there are countless court cases where both sides think they did nothing wrong.
You don’t even need AI for that, if you followed the Infinite Monkey Theorem and just happened to stumble upon a work falling under copyright, you still could not sell it even if it was produced by a purely random process.
Another great example is the Mona Lisa. Most people know what it looks like and if they had sufficient talent could mimic it 1:1. However, there are numerous adaptations of the Mona Lisa that are not infringing (by today’s standards), because they transform the work to the point where it’s no longer the original expression, but a re-expression of the same idea. Anything less than that is pretty much completely safe infringement wise.
You’re right though that OpenAI tries to cover their ass by implementing safeguards. Which is to be expected because it’s a legal argument in court that once they became aware of situations they have to take steps to limit harm. They can indeed not prevent it completely, but it’s the effort that counts. Practically none of that kind of moderation is 100% effective. Otherwise we’d live in a pretty good world.
Honestly, that’s why open source AI is such a good thing for small creatives. Hate it or love it, anyone wielding AI with the intention to make new expression will be much more safe and efficient to succeed until they can grow big enough to hire a team with specialists. People often look at those at the top but ignore the things that can grow from the bottom and actually create more creative expression.
Every piece of legislature ever needs to deal with the emotions of it’s subjects. An unemphatic, but cold hard rational law, will be nothing less of tyrannical most of the time. Laws are for humans to follow, and humans have emotions that need to be understood for a law to be successful and supported to last into the future. A law that isn’t supported by it’s subjects eventually leads to revolution (big and small).
How logic and rational a person can be is highly dependent on their emotional intelligence. You might be able to suppress your emotions when there is no stress at all, but if you cave during a stressful situation and start lashing out, that does impact your overall intelligence. Intelligence is just the collection of behaviors and training that make you effective at doing what you want to do, and being rational and logical is definitely good, but not the end of it all.
You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence Because what you are describing is exactly what I was saying. High emotional intelligence is not relying blindly on your emotions like republicans do, that’s what low emotional intelligence looks like.
People forget emotional intelligence is also just as much if not more important than logical intelligence when attempting to change the world for the better. And both Trump and Musk rank among the lowest of low there.
It doesn’t measure intelligence, it correlates with (logical) intelligence. There is also emotional intelligence, which Musk is evidently on the exact opposite side of genius. You just can’t put an exact number on intelligence, only approximate it. Having a lot of money ensures good baseline education, and many avenues to inflate score. His actions and results are going to speak louder than any score he pumps up, and we know where that ends:
Exactly, thinking that is what I was getting pulled me over the edge, I sometimes remember a music video I want to listen to on my phone during my commute and I don’t want to spend 30 minutes either getting on my PC to download it with a tool, or using a third party downloader which can at times be shady. So upgrading that to a single click in the app seemed like a great deal. Crushingly disappointed when I found out how it actually was. Turns out the real answer was NewPipe, which I don’t even have to pay for.
Yeah, I thought it was a nice compromise. It seemed sensible that if Premium is the ‘compliant’ response to not wanting ads, the ‘compliant’ response to using third party tools to download videos was to just be able to do things more easily and with more options through Premium as well. But apparently they wanted to advertise something anyone who’s wanted to download a youtube video would not describe as ‘downloading’, which is easily out competed by free (but at times shady) tools.
I get that. It would be totally fine if it just gave the option. But yes the issue is more egregious on PC.
I like those perks too, but if I pay more to be able to download videos (which again, I could’ve used a free tool for) I want to be able to do whatever I want with it. Download means getting a file I can watch using my own video player and store for later even if Youtube dies tomorrow, If I go on holiday without internet, or if my internet goes down for a week. Anything.
If Google is going to be “Uhm aksually, you are technically downloading it, thats why we can advertise it like that”, then I’m already downloading literally every video I watch. And thats not the kind of bullshit you give to a paying customer. That is spitting in my face for paying you. Why does a non-Premium user get better service with free third party youtube downloaders?
It’s a matter of principle.
I gave Premium a shot. Then the one time I wanted to use the feature Google said I was paying for - being able to download videos - I found out that it was just a glorified pre-buffer.
Enshittification isnt just limited to free users folks. Slammed that cancellation button right then and there. Good luck earning back my trust, I’m happy to pay if you didnt scream so loudly that even if I paid, you were going to treat me like shit anyways.
I am kind of afraid that if voting becomes more public than it already is, it will lead exactly to more of the kind of “zero-content downvote” accounts mentioned in the ticket. Because some people are just wildly irrational when it comes to touchy subjects, and aint nobody got time to spend an eternity with them dismantling their beliefs so they understand the nuance you see that they don’t (If they even let you). So it kind of incentivizes people to create an account like that to ensure a crazy person doesn’t latch on to the account you’re trying to have normal discussions with.
But I understand that they can technically already do this if they wanted to. So perhaps it will be fine as long as we fight against vote viewing being weaponized as a community.
Alright, don’t say I didn’t try. Good luck trying to convince people on a message that far more people disagree with than agree. And on a point that’s at the end of the day irrelevant to actually reducing genocide, even if you do convince them Joe Biden is somehow personally responsible.
You don’t know me, nor what I have done to try and change things, yet you think because I don’t want to accept your inaccurate beliefs that I’m somehow supporting genocide with that. Good luck trying to make anything but enemies with that mentality. I don’t even work for the US or pay taxes there, and I proudly support efforts in my country to stop funding Israel. My hands are clean when it comes to the money US puts into Israel, yet even I can see what you’re trying to peddle is incorrect.
By your own logic, you are doing genocide yourself. Because you are not personally flying the planes, but you are funding Joe Biden through your tax dollars, who funds Israel, who pays the pilots that fly the planes. You are also supporting the Uyghur genocide because you can’t get around buying Chinese made products that fund the CCP either. You are also most likely supporting child labor because you basically can’t get around products produced by child labour in Africa and South East Asia.
If you’re going to take that stance, pretty much everyone is a fucking horrible person. Which is why it’s stupid, because clearly people struggle with these things. You can fight against those things while still being forced to participate in them. Joe Biden definitely has more say in the matter than the average person, but he too is held back by factors which he can’t get around, which we talked about in grand detail. Who doesn’t have those constraints? Israel. The people who have the final say over the money and decide to commit war crimes with them instead of what the money is intended for. Is Joe Biden complicit in his weak response to Israel? Yes. But it doesn’t make him personally responsible because he’s just a figurehead that has certain responsibilities to his base and his country, which he too can’t get around. And Kamala will also inherit that if she takes office.
Only one of the two parties can win, c’mon, you know they have the whole thing rigged right?
It was you who claimed 50% of the votes were untapped. Now you’re saying it’s rigged anyways. It almost sounds like you don’t have any hope to change things, which you are readily accusing others of. Could it be that you are starting to recognize that there are barriers in place to get people to stop supporting genocide?
Okay. Here is my message.
- Biden is doing genocide.
- supporting Biden = supporting genocide
- We can force this genocide to stop, and that starts with raising our voices against it. It isn’t hopeless.
As long as you keep including #1 (and to a certain extent #2) and militantly defend that position rather than understand the other person’s point of view, you will not change their mind. Even if there is a large majority perfectly willing to agree and fight for #3, and people that are undecided who could be convinced of #3, but not #1 and #2. As such, you are weakening the position to actually change #3. Even doing nothing would be better.
And yes, by that logic, that makes you a force for genocide, even if your actual opinion is anti-genocide. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions make people more likely to side with genocide because you’re making them irrationally resistant to your ideas, because you package the reasonable stance of stopping genocide with the unreasonable stance of assigning full responsibility to a not necessarily innocent, but still indirectly involved person.
As I said, my goal was to help you relax your stance so you can be a force against genocide, because I actually want to stop genocide, and so having more people effectively stop the genocide is what I want. But I have seemingly failed with you. Now every person you get to who is undecided, someone else will have to undo in their mind that they don’t mean your position, but a reasonable one. You have made it harder to convince them to drop their support for genocide, and even harder to get them to stand up against it. This will be my last response, and I hope you reflect on our conversation. We want the same thing, at the end of the day.
I was here since the start before any such messages appeared, so you’re not fooling me. You started out with “He’s still doing genocide y’all”. An inaccurate and laden statement which you rightfully got a critical responses for, not because people support the policy. You followed this up by calling your critics pro-genocide, regardless of their actual position. I’m sorry, but you don’t exist out of context either, so yeah, people are kind of not going to like you in this thread. It’s why you don’t attack people out of the gate, I warned you about that in my very first message. Hostility often creates more hostility. I don’t necessarily condone that, but you have thrown a little too much dirt to be surprised about being dirty.
We haven’t even discussed whether or not I think we can do anything about it, yet you call me deeply cynical for a position I don’t hold. I do think more people in the US should be against the support for Israel. I do think the support makes Israel emboldened to commit genocide. I do think people can be convinced. But as I was trying to explain to you, I understand that other people look at different aspects and have different experiences to where they can be unaware of Israels atrocities, or are indeed willing to look away. And often those people are sadly needed for a majority that has chances of actually stopping the genocide. So they must be convinced to get the end result I desire, no more genocide.
It should be obvious that anyone you ask if genocide is okay, they will say no. But people can have irrational and conflicting beliefs, and to actually make them change their mind the worst you can do is to effectively say “you are a terrible person”, even if it’s effectively true. Because if they’ve rationalized themselves to accept supporting Israel, being called a terrible person only emboldens that rationalization. There exists no magic incantation that will change this. (And it should be said, calling the people who very well might share your opinion on all but your questionable remarks, makes you look really bad)
If you think you can get 50% of the votes in the US, I really urge you to start a party right now. Because by that logic both Democrats and Republicans could only hold 25% of the vote, so you could win in a landslide victory with the remaining 50%. But I think we both know that will not happen. But according to the data, ~66% voted in the last election. 34% is still enough for a victory, but that’s a tall order.
I want you to understand that I’m talking to you because I want you to be effective at getting your message across. Having commendable opinions but being terribly self destructive in ways of expressing them is so incredibly wasteful and will at worst create more support for the thing you are rallying against. Clearly you have the vigor to stand up for what your opinion is, but actually changing things means taking on constructive, calm and respectful dialogue, and doing what’s effective over what perhaps more morally clean in the short term, but because you didn’t actually change anything, morally dubious in the long term.
I don’t think people connect her with Biden’s genocide. Yes, she is complicit because there are things she could be doing to remove Biden from office, but most people don’t see the Vice President as actually all that important in deciding policy. I do not think attacking Biden on this issue hurts her at all, and that’s why she’s going to win. Attacking Biden is, in fact, a good way to pressure Harris without hurting her chances at winning. He’s a fair target and it should be open season on his evil ancient ass.
Sure, I can see the logic in that. I do think it will affect her and people are kind of expecting her to have the same stance as Biden even if he changes it. Unless she comes out to denounce it, which I highly doubt she will. But we can disagree on that and criticizing Biden for that is totally fine.
Whenever they’ve retaliated in the past it’s always been very conservative and measured because they don’t want a regional war either. They understand that a regional war wouldn’t save Palestinian lives and would be extremely costly for everyone in the region, they’re not the problem here. Israel is the only actor trying to start more wars at this moment and you need to recognize that, rather than scaring yourself with Iranian boogeymen. Israel is the problem and Israel must be stopped, or war is inevitable.
I mean, we’re having this conversation because you insisted Joe Biden was the issue. It has always been my stance that Israel is the problem, and kind of abusing the good will of the populations that supported them. So I’m glad to hear you seem to agree on that. But I do think you are giving Iran too much credit, they are not a boogeyman, which would imply they are actually harmless. They are a legitimately evil autocracy that does not care for people more than Israel does. Iran will definitely take the chance if the US would drop support for Israel. It is because of Israels support in large part from the US that they have not made rash moves, because they too have to balance their pushback on Israel and invoking a response from the US and allies.
There’s still several months until the election. It can, and will, continue to get worse. I don’t think we should find out where the breaking point is.
I don’t think you should either. But I’m not so sure it’s set in stone if it will. We’re living in turbulent times.
The uncommitted movement is a powerful force in swing states and donors know this - Biden being old is only part of the reason he was forced to drop out.
Swing voters are pretty much by definition leaning more towards the Republicans than non-swing Democrats. And we just sort of agreed that Republicans are more in favor of supporting Israel. So I don’t think it’s very unreasonable to say these swing voters are more likely to support Israel than Democrats. More evidence of that is the fact I don’t think Kamala has spoken prominently once of Gaza since she became the presumptive and eventual candidate. Which she definitely would highlight if that would make her more favorable with swing voters. But there are seemingly more important issues that she’s addressing first, if she will even discuss Israel at all.
It’s like I said, I think Harris is going to be just fine. Dems believe, probably correctly, that Biden is a lightning rod that will distract voters away from Harris’s record on Israel and allow them to win this November. If they’re right, we can voice opposition to Biden’s racist genocidal policies without helping Trump win. We can’t afford to be silent. So now that he’s out of the race there’s literally no reason to hold back. At this point support for Biden is 100% just support for genocide.
I agree. Biden can be a lightning rod for criticism instead of Kamala. But again, I don’t think anyone is really supporting Joe Biden that way anymore. I certainly haven’t seen such sentiment from the people you accused of being pro genocide. Support is very different from rejecting what they perceive to be inaccuracies or mischaracterizations. And the two shouldn’t be confused, nor easily determined if you’re going to assign the label ‘pro genocide’ to them afterwards. If you want to actually change things, attacking people will not make people with opposing views change their mind, and reasonable allies will abandon you. Even if you are right, you still need to convince people who think you are wrong. And assuming they must hold that position because they are pro genocide is just massively slashing your own tires.
I never anthropomorphized the technology, unfortunately due to how language works it’s easy to misinterpret it as such. I was indeed trying to explain overfitting. You are forgetting the fact that current AI technology (artificial neural networks) are based on biological neural networks. There is a range of quirks that it exhibits that biological neural networks do as well. But it is not human, nor anything close. But that does not mean that there are no similarities that can be rightfully pointed out.
Overfitting isn’t just what you describe though. It also occurs if the prompt guides the AI towards a very specific part of it’s training data. To the point where the calculations it will perform are extremely certain about what words come next. Overfitting here isn’t caused by an abundance of data, but rather a lack of it. The training data isn’t being produced from within the model, but as a statistical inevitability of the mathematical version of your prompt. Which is why it’s tricking the AI, because an AI doesn’t understand copyright - it just performs the calculations. But you do. And so using that as an example is like saying “Ha, stupid gun. I pulled the trigger and you shot this man in front of me, don’t you know murder is illegal buddy?”
Nobody should be expecting a machine to use itself ethically. Ethics is a human thing.
People that use AI have an ethical obligation to avoid overfitting. People that produce AI also have an ethical obligation to reduce overfitting. But a prompt quite literally has infinite combinations (within the token limits) to consider, so overfitting will happen in fringe situations. That’s not because that data is actually present in the model, but because the combination of the prompt with the model pushes the calculation towards a very specific prediction which can heavily resemble or be verbatim the original text. (Note: I do really dislike companies that try to hide the existence of overfitting to users though, and you can rightfully criticize them for claiming it doesn’t exist)
This is incorrect. A toddler can and will verbatim repeat nursery rhymes that it hears. It’s literally one of their defining features, to the dismay of parents and grandparents around the world. I can also whistle pretty much my entire music collection exactly as it was produced because I’ve listened to each song hundreds if not thousands of times. And I’m quite certain you too have a situation like that. An AI’s mind does not decay or degrade (Nor does it change for the better like humans) and the data encoded in it is far greater, so it will present more of these situations in it’s fringes.
How do you think toddlers learn to make their first own sentences? It’s why parents spend so much time saying “Papa” or “Mama” to their toddler. Exactly because they want them to copy them verbatim. Eventually the corpus of their knowledge grows big enough to the point where they start to experiment and eventually develop their own style of talking. But it’s still heavily based on the information they take it. It’s why we have dialects and languages. Take a look at what happens when children don’t learn from others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child So yes, the AI is using it’s training data, nobody’s arguing it doesn’t. But it’s trivial to see how it’s crafting it’s own sentences from that data for the vast majority of situations. It’s also why you can ask it to talk like a pirate, and then it will suddenly know how to mix in the essence of talking like a pirate into it’s responses. Or how it can remember names and mix those into sentences.
If your arguments is that it can produce something that happens to align with it’s training data with the right prompt, well yeah that’s not incorrect. But it is so heavily misguided and borders bad faith to suggest that this tiny minority of cases where overfitting occurs is indicative of the rest of it. LLMs are a prediction machines, so if you know how to guide it towards what you want it to predict, and that is in the training data, it’s going to predict that most likely. Under normal circumstances where the prompt you give it is neutral and unique, you will basically never encounter overfitting. You really have to try for most AI models.
But then again, you might be arguing this based on a specific AI model that is very prone to overfitting, while I am arguing this out of the technology as a whole.
It is originality, as these AI can easily produce material never seen before in the vast, vast majority of situations. Which is also what we often refer to as creativity, because it has to be able to mix information and still retain legibility. Humans also constantly reuse phrases, ideas, visions, ideals of other people. It is intellectually dishonest to not look at these similarities in human psychology and then treat AI as having to be perfect all the time, never once saying the same thing as someone else. To convey certain information, there are only finite ways to do so within the English language.