Apparently, stealing other peopleā€™s work to create product for money is now ā€œfair useā€ as according to OpenAI because they are ā€œinnovatingā€ (stealing). Yeah. Move fast and break things, huh?

ā€œBecause copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expressionā€”including blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documentsā€”it would be impossible to train todayā€™s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials,ā€ wrote OpenAI in the House of Lords submission.

OpenAI claimed that the authors in that lawsuit ā€œmisconceive[d] the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence.ā€

  • Phanatik@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    110
    Ā·
    11 months ago

    A comedian isnā€™t forming a sentence based on what the most probable word is going to appear after the previous one. This is such a bullshit argument that reduces human competency to ā€œmonkey see thing to draw thingā€ and completely overlooks the craft and intent behind creative works. Do you know why ChatGPT uses certain words over others? Probability. It decided as a result of its training that one word would appear after the previous in certain contexts. It absolutely doesnā€™t take into account things like ā€œmaybe this word would be better here because the sound and syllables maintains the flow of the sentenceā€.

    Baffling takes from people who donā€™t know what theyā€™re talking about.

    • frog šŸø@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      63
      Ā·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I wish I could upvote this more than once.

      What people always seem to miss is that a human doesnā€™t need billions of examples to be able to produce something thatā€™s kind of ā€œeh, close enoughā€. Artists donā€™t look at billions of paintings. They look at a few, but do so deeply, absorbing not just the most likely distribution of brushstrokes, but why the painting looks the way it does. For a basis of comparison, I did an art and design course last year and looked at about 300 artworks in total (course requirement was 50-100). The research component on my design-related degree course is one page a week per module (so basically one example from the field the module is about, plus some analysis). The real bulk of the work humans do isnā€™t looking at billions of examples: itā€™s looking at a few, and then practicing the skill and developing a process that allows them to convey the thing theyā€™re trying to express.

      If the AI models were really doing exactly the same thing humans do, the models could be trained without any copyright infringement at all, because all of the public domain and creative commons content, plus maybe licencing a little more, would be more than enough.

      • Phanatik@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        Exactly! You can glean so much from a single work, not just about the work itself but who created it and what ideas were they trying to express and what does that tell us about the world they live in and how they see that world.

        This doesnā€™t even touch the fact that Iā€™m learning to draw not by looking at other drawings but what exactly Iā€™m trying to draw. I know at a base level, a drawing is a series of shapes made by hand whether itā€™s through a digital medium or traditional pen/pencil and paper. But the skill isnā€™t being able replicate other drawings, itā€™s being able to convert something I can see into a drawing. If Iā€™m drawing someone sitting in a wheelchair, then Iā€™ll get the pose of them sitting in the wheelchair but I can add details I want to emphasise or remove details I donā€™t want. Thereā€™s so much that goes into creative work and Iā€™m tired of arguing with people who have no idea what it takes to produce creative works.

        • frog šŸø@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          Ā·
          11 months ago

          It seems that most of the people who think what humans and AIs do is the same thing are not actually creatives themselves. Their level of understanding of what it takes to draw goes no further than ā€œwell anyone can draw, children do it all the timeā€. They have the same respect for writing, of course, equating the ability to string words together to write an email, with the process it takes to write a brilliant novel or script. They donā€™t get it, and to an extent, thatā€™s fine - not everybody needs to understand everything. But they should at least have the decency to listen to the people that do get it.

          • intensely_human@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            Ā·
            11 months ago

            Well, thatā€™s not me. Iā€™m a creative, and I see deep parallels between how LLMs work and how my own mind works.

            • frog šŸø@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              Ā·
              11 months ago

              Either youā€™re vastly overestimating the degree of understanding and insight AIs possess, or youā€™re vastly underestimating your own capabilities. :)

              • Veloxization@yiffit.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                Ā·
                11 months ago

                This whole AI craze has just shown me that people are losing faith in their own abilities and their ability to learn things. Iā€™ve heard so many who use AI to generate ā€œartworkā€ argue that they tried to do art ā€œfor yearsā€ without improving, and hence have come to conclusion that creativity is a talent that only some have, instead of a skill you can learn and hone. Just because they didnā€™t see results as fast as theyā€™d have liked.

                • frog šŸø@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  Ā·
                  11 months ago

                  Very well said! Creativity is definitely a skill that requires work, and for which there are no short cuts. It seems to me that the vast majority of people using AI for artwork are just looking for a short cut, so they can get the results without having to work hard and practice. The one valid exception is when itā€™s used by disabled people who have physical limitations on what they can do, which is a point thatā€™s brought up occasionally - and if that was the one and only use-case for these models, I think a lot of artists would actually be fine with that.

                  • Veloxization@yiffit.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    Ā·
                    11 months ago

                    I started drawing seriously when I was 14. Looking at my old artwork, I didnā€™t start improving fast until I was around 19 or 20. Not to say I didnā€™t improve at all during those five to six years but the pace did get faster once I had ā€œlearned to learnā€ so to say. That is to say it can take a lot of patience to get to a point where you actually start seeing improvement fast enough to stay motivated. But it is 100% worth it because at the end you have a lot of things you have created with your own two hands.

                    And regarding the point on physical limitations, I canā€™t blame anyone in a situation like that for using AI if they have no other chance for realising their imaginations. For others, it is completely possible and not reserved for people who have some mythical innate talent. Just grab a pen or a brush and enjoy the process of honing a fine skill regardless of the end result. ā¤ļø

              • jarfil@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                Ā·
                11 months ago

                Alternatively, you might be vastly overestimating human ā€œunderstanding and insightā€, or how much of it is really needed to create stuff.

                • frog šŸø@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  Ā·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Average humans, sure, donā€™t have a lot of understanding and insight, and little is needed to be able to draw a doodle on some paper. But trained artists have a lot of it, because part of the process is learning to interpret artworks and work out why the artist used a particular composition or colour or object. To create really great art, you do actually need a lot of understanding and insight, because everything in your work will have been put there deliberately, not just to fill up space.

                  An AI doesnā€™t know why itā€™s put an apple on the table rather than an orange, it just does it because human artists have done it - it doesnā€™t know what apples mean on a semiotic level to the human artist or the humans that look at the painting. But humans do understand what apples represent - they may not pick up on it consciously, but somewhere in the backs of their minds, theyā€™ll see an apple in a painting and itā€™ll make the painting mean something different than if the fruit had been an orange.

                  • jarfil@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    Ā·
                    11 months ago

                    it doesnā€™t know what apples mean on a semiotic level

                    Interestingly, LLMs seem to show emerging semiotic organization. By analyzing the activation space of the neural network, related concepts seem to get trained into similar activation patterns, which is what allows LLMs to zero shot relationships when executed at a ā€œtemperatureā€ (randomness level) in the right range.

                    Pairing an LLM with a stable diffusion model, allows the resulting AI toā€¦ well, judge by yourself: https://llm-grounded-diffusion.github.io/

      • Quokka@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        Ā·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Children learn by watching others. We are trained from millions of examples starting from before birth.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        When you look at one painting, is that the equivalent of one instance of the painting in the training data? There is an infinite amount of information in the painting, and each time you look you process more of that information.

        Iā€™d say any given painting you look at in a museum, you process at least a hundred mental images of aspects of it. A painting on your wall could be seen ten thousand times easily.

    • DaDragon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      Ā·
      11 months ago

      Thatā€™s what humans do, though. Maybe not probability directly, but we all know that some words should be put in a certain order. We still operate within standard norms that apply to aparte group of people. LLMā€™s just go about it in a different way, but they achieve the same general result. If Iā€™m drawing a human, that means thereā€™s a ā€˜handā€™ here, and a ā€˜headā€™ there. ā€˜Headā€™ is a weird combination of pixels that mostly look like this, ā€˜handā€™ looks kinda like that. All depends on how the model is structured, but tell me thatā€™s not very similar to a simplified version of how humans operate.

      • Phanatik@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        Yeah but the difference is we still choose our words. We can still alter sentences on the fly. I can think of a sentence and understand verbs go after the subject but I still have the cognition to alter the sentence to have the effect I want. The thing lacking in LLMs is intent and Iā€™m yet to see anyone tell me why a generative model decides to have more than 6 fingers. As humans we know hands generally have five fingers and thereā€™s a group of people who donā€™t so unless we wanted to draw a person with a different number of fingers, we could. A generative art model canā€™t help itself from drawing multiple fingers because all it understands is that ā€œfinger + finger = handā€ but it has no concept on when to stop.

        • DaDragon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          Ā·
          11 months ago

          And thatā€™s the reason why LLM generated content isnā€™t considered creative.

          I do believe that the person using the device has a right to copyright the unique method they used to generate the content, but the content itself isnā€™t anything worth protecting.

          • Phanatik@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            Ā·
            11 months ago

            You say that yet I initially responded to someone who was comparing an LLM to what a comedian does.

            There is no unique method because thereā€™s hardly anything unique you can do. Two people using Stable Diffusion to produce an image are putting in the same amount of work. One might put more time into crafting the right prompt but thatā€™s not work youā€™re doing.

            If 90% of the work is handled by the model, and you just layer on whatever extra thing you wanted, that doesnā€™t mean you created the thing. That also implies you have much control over the output. Youā€™re effectively negotiating with this machine to produce what you want.

            • DaDragon@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              Ā·
              11 months ago

              Wouldnā€™t that lead to the same argument as originally brought against photography, though?

              A photographer is effectively negotiating with the sun, the sky and everything else to hopefully get the result they are looking for on their device.

              • Phanatik@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                10
                Ā·
                11 months ago

                One difference is that the photographer has to go the places theyā€™re taking pictures of.

                Another is that photography isnā€™t comparable to paintings and it never has been. Iā€™m willing to bet photography and paintings have never coexisted in a contest. Except, when people say their generative art is comparable to what artists have been producing by hand, they are admitting that generative art has more in common with photography than it does with hand-crafted art but they want the prestige and recognition those artists get for their work.

            • Nyfure@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              Ā·
              11 months ago

              more time into crafting the right prompt

              Thats not work to you? My company pays me to spend time to do the right thing, even though most of the work does the computer.

              I see where you are going at, but your argument also invalidates other forms of human interaction and creating.

              In my country copyright can only be granted if a certain amount of (human) work went into something. Any work.
              The difficult part is finding out whats enough and what kind of work qualify to lead to some kind of protection, even if partial.
              The difficult part was not to create something, but to prove someone did or didnt put enough work into it.
              I think we can hold generated or assisted goods to the same standard.

              Putting a simple prompt together should probably not be granted protection as no significant work went into it. But refining it, editing the resultā€¦ maybe thats enough, thats really up to the society to decide.

              At the same time we have to balance the power of machines against human work, so the human work doesnt get totally invalidated, but rather shifted and treated as sub-type.
              Machines already replaced alot of work, also creative ones. Book-printing, forging, producing foodā€¦ the scary part about generative AI is mainly the speed of them spreading.

              • Phanatik@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                12
                Ā·
                11 months ago

                So as a data analyst a lot of my work is done through a computer but I can apply my same skills if someone hands me a piece of paper with data printed on it and told me to come up with solutions to the problems with it. I donā€™t need the computer to do what I need to do, it makes it easier to manipulate data but the degree of problem solving required needs to be done by a human and thatā€™s why itā€™s my job. If a machine could do it, then they would be doing it but they arenā€™t because contrary to what people believe about data analysis, you have to be somewhat creative to do it well.

                Crafting a prompt is an exercise in trial and error. Itā€™s work but itā€™s not skilled work. It doesnā€™t take talent or practice to do. Despite the prompt, you are still at the mercy of the machine.

                Even by the case youā€™ve presented, I have to ask, at what point of a human editing the output of a generative model constitutes it being your own work and not the machineā€™s? How much do you have to change? Can you give me a %?

                Machines were intended to automate the tedious tasks that we all have to suffer to free up our brains for more engaging things which might include creative pursuits. Automation exists to make your life easier, not to rob you of lifeā€™s pursuits or your livelihood. It never shouldā€™ve been used to produce creative work and I find the attempts to equate this abominationā€™s outputs to what artists have been doing for years, utterly deplorable.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          Ā·
          11 months ago

          I donā€™t choose my words man. I get a vague sense of the meaning I want to convey and the words just form themselves.

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        As an artist you draw with an understanding of the human body, though. An understanding current models donā€™t have because they arenā€™t actually intelligent.

        Maybe when a human is an absolute beginner in drawing they will think about the different lines and replicate even how other people draw stuff that then looks like a hand.

        But eventually they will realise (hopefully, otherwise they may get frustrated and stop drawing) that you need to understand the hand to draw one. Itā€™s mass, itā€™s concept or the idea of what a hand is.

        This may sound very abstract and strange but creative expression is more complex than replicating what we have seen a million times. Itā€™s a complex function unique to the human brain, an organ we donā€™t even scientifically understand yet.

    • hascat@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      Ā·
      11 months ago

      Thatā€™s not the point though. The point is that the human comedian and the AI both benefit from consuming creative works covered by copyright.

      • Phanatik@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        Yeah except a machine is owned by a company and doesnā€™t consume the same way. It breaks down copyrighted works into data points so it can find the best way of putting those data points together again. If you understand anything at all about how these models work, they do not consume media the same way we do. It is not an entity with a thought process or consciousness (despite the misleading marketing of ā€œAIā€ would have you believe), itā€™s an optimisation algorithm.

          • Phanatik@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            Ā·
            11 months ago

            Itā€™s so funny that this is something new. This was Grammarlyā€™s whole schtick since before ChatGPT so how different is Grammarly AI?

            • vexikron@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              Ā·
              11 months ago

              Here is the bigger picture: The vast majority of tech illiterate people think something is AI because duh its called AI.

              Its literally just the power of branding and marketing on the minds of poorly informed humans.

              Unfortunately this is essentially a reverse Turing Test.

              The vast majority of humans do not know anything about AI, and also a huge majority of them can also barely tell the difference between, currently in some but not all forms, output from what is basically a brute force total internet plagiarism and synthesis software, from many actual human created content in many cases.

              To me this basically just means that about 99% of the time, most humans are actually literally NPCs, and they only do actual creative and unpredictable things very very rarely.

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                Ā·
                11 months ago

                I call it AI because itā€™s artificial and itā€™s intelligent. Itā€™s not that complicated.

                The thing we have to remember is how scary and disruptive AI is. Given that fear, it is scary to acknowledge that we have AI emerging into our world. Because it is scary, that pushes us to want to ignore it.

                Itā€™s called denial, and itā€™s the best explanation for why people arenā€™t willing to acknowledge that LLMs are AI.

                • vexikron@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  Ā·
                  11 months ago

                  It meets almost none of the conceptions of intelligence at all.

                  It is not capable of abstraction.

                  It is capable of brute force understanding similarities between various images and text, and then presenting a wide array of text and images containing elements that reasonably well emulate a wide array of descriptors.

                  This is convincing to many people that it has a large knowledge set.

                  But that is not abstraction.

                  It is not capable of logic.

                  It is only capable of again brute force analyzing an astounding amount of content and then producing essentially the consensus view on answers to common logical problems.

                  Ask it any complex logical question that has never been answered on the internet before and it will output irrelevant or inaccurate nonsense, likely just finding an answer to a similar but not identical question.

                  The same goes for reasoning, planning, critical thinking and problem solving.

                  If you ask it to do any of these things in a highly specific situation even giving it as much information as possible, if your situation is novel or even simply too complex, it will again just spit out a non sense answer that is basically going to be very inadequate and faulty because it will just draw elements together from the closest things it has been trained on, nearly certainly being contradictory or entirely dubious due to being unable to account for a particularly uncommon constraint, or constraints that are very uncommonly faced simultaneously.

                  It is not creative, in the sense of being able to generate something novel or new.

                  All it does is plagiarize elements of things that are popular and have many examples of and then attempt mix them together, but it will never generate a new art style or a new genre of music.

                  It does not even really infer things, is not really capable of inference.

                  It simply has a massive, astounding data set, and the ability to synthesize elements from this in a convincing way.

                  In conclusion, you have no idea what you are talking about, and you yourself literally are one of the people who has failed the reverse Turing Test, likely because you are not very well very versed in the technicals of how this stuff actually works, thus proving my point that you simply believe it is AI because of its branding, with no critical thought applied whatsoever.

                • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  Ā·
                  11 months ago

                  Current models arenā€™t intelligent. Not even by the flimsy and unprecise definition of intelligence we currently have.

                  Wanted to post a whole rant but then saw vexikron already did so I spare you xD

      • vexikron@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        Ā·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        And human comedians regularly get called out when they outright steal others material and present it as their own.

        The word for this is plagiarism.

        And in OpenAIs framework, when used in a relevant commercial context, they are functionally operating and profiting off of the worlds most comprehensive plagiarism software.

    • You do know that comedians are copying each others material all the time though? Either making the same joke, or slightly adapting it.

      So in the context of copyright vs. model training i fail to see how the exact process of the model is relevant? At the end copyrighted material goes in and material based on that copyrighted material goes out.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      Ā·
      11 months ago

      you know how the neurons in our brain work, right?

      because if not, well, itā€™s pretty similarā€¦ unless you say thereā€™s a soul (in which case we canā€™t really have a conversation based on fact alone), weā€™re just big olā€™ probability machines with tuned weights based on past experiences too

      • Phanatik@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        You are spitting out basic points and attempting to draw similarities because our brains are capable of something similar. The difference between what youā€™ve said and what LLMs do is that we have experiences that we are able to glean a variety of information from. An LLM sees text and all itā€™s designed to do is say ā€œx is more likely to appear before y than zā€. If you fed it nonsense, it would regurgitate nonsense. If you feed it text from racist sites, it will regurgitate that same language because thatā€™s all it has seen.

        Youā€™ll read this and think ā€œthatā€™s what humans do too, right?ā€ Wrong. A human can be fed these things and still reject them. Someone else in this thread has made some good points regarding this but Iā€™ll state them here as well. An LLM will tell you information but it has no cognition on what itā€™s telling you. It has no idea that itā€™s right or wrong, itā€™s job is to convince you that itā€™s right because thatā€™s the success state. If you tell it itā€™s wrong, thatā€™s a failure state. The more you speak with it, the more fail states it accumulates and the more likely it is to cutoff communication because itā€™s not reaching a success, itā€™s not giving you what you want. The longer the conversation goes on, the more crazy LLMs get as well because itā€™s too much to process at once, holding those contexts in its memory while trying to predict the next one. Our brains do this easily and so much more. To claim an LLM is intelligent is incredibly misguided, it is merely the imitation of intelligence.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          but thatā€™s just a matter of complexity, not fundamental difference. the way our brains work and the way an artificial neural network work arenā€™t that different; just that our brains are beyond many orders of magnitude bigger

          thereā€™s no particular reason why we canā€™t feed artificial neural networks an enormous amount of ā€¦ letā€™s say tangentially related experiential information ā€¦ as well, but in order to be efficient and make them specialise in the things we want, we only feed them information thatā€™s directly related to the specialty we want them to perform

          thereā€™s someā€¦ ā€œpre trainingā€ or ā€œpre-existing stateā€ that exists with humans too that comes from genetics, but iā€™d argue thatā€™s as relevant to the actual task of learning, comprehension, and creating as a BIOS is to running an operating system (that is, a necessary precondition to ensure the correct functioning of our body with our brain, but not actually what youā€™d call the main function)

          iā€™m also not claiming that an LLM is intelligent (or rather iā€™d prefer to use the term self aware because intelligent is pretty nebulous); just that the structure it has isnā€™t that much different to our brains just on a level thatā€™s so much smaller and so much more generic that you canā€™t expect it to perform as well as a human - you wouldnā€™t expect to cut out 99% of a humans brain and have them be able to continue to function at the same level either

          i guess the core of what iā€™m getting at is that the self awareness that humans have is definitely not present in an LLM, however i donā€™t think that self-awareness is necessarily a pre-requisite for most things that we call creativity. i think thatā€™s itā€™s entirely possible for an artificial neural net thatā€™s fundamentally the same technology that we use today to be able to ingest the same data that a human would from birth, and to have very similar outcomesā€¦ given that belief (and iā€™m very aware that it certainly is just a belief - we arenā€™t close to understanding our brains, but i donā€™t fundamentally thing thereā€™s anything other then neurons firing that results in the human condition), just because you simplify and specialise the input data doesnā€™t mean that the process is different. you could argue that itā€™s lesser, for sure, but to rule out that it can create a legitimately new work is definitely premature

      • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        ā€œSoulā€ is the word we use for something we donā€™t scientifically understand yet. Unless you did discover how human brains work, in that case I congratulate you on your Nobel prize.

        You can abstract a complex concept so much it becomes wrong. And abstracting how the brain works to ā€œitā€™s a probability machineā€ definitely is a wrong description. Especially when you want to use it as an argument of similarity to other probability machines.

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          ā€œSoulā€ is the word we use for something we donā€™t scientifically understand yet

          thatā€™s far from definitive. another definition is

          A part of humans regarded as immaterial, immortal, separable from the body at death

          but since we arenā€™t arguing semantics, it doesnā€™t really matter exactly, other than the fact that itā€™s important to remember that just because you have an experience, belief, or view doesnā€™t make it the only truth

          of course i didnā€™t discover categorically how the human brain works in its entirety, however most scientists iā€™m sure would agree that the method by which the brain performs its functions is by neurons firing. if you disagree with that statement, the burden of proof is on you. the part we donā€™t understand is how it all connects up - the emergent behaviour. we understand the basics; thatā€™s not in question, and you seem to be questioning it

          You can abstract a complex concept so much it becomes wrong

          itā€™s not abstracted; itā€™s simplifiedā€¦ if what youā€™re saying were true, then simplifying complex organisms down to a petri dish for research would be ā€œabstractedā€ so much it ā€œbecomes wrongā€, which is categorically untrueā€¦ itā€™s an incomplete picture, but that doesnā€™t make it either wrong or abstract

          *edit: sorry, it was another comment where i specifically said belief; the comment you replied to didnā€™t state that, however most of this still applies regardless

          i laid out an a leads to b leads to c and stated that itā€™s simply a belief, however itā€™s a belief thatā€™s based in logic and simplified concepts. if you want to disagree thatā€™s fine but donā€™t act like you have some ā€œevidenceā€ or ā€œproofā€ to back up your claimsā€¦ all weā€™re talking about here is belief, because we simply donā€™t know - neither you nor i

          and given that all of this is based on belief rather than proof, the only thing that matters is what we as individuals believe about the input and output data (because the bit in the middle has no definitive proof either way)

          if a human consumes media and writes something and it looks different, thatā€™s not a violation

          if a machine consumes media and writes something and it looks different, youā€™re arguing that is a violation

          the only difference here is your belief that a human brain somehow has something ā€œmoreā€ than a probabilistic model going onā€¦ but again, thatā€™s far from certain

    • SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Am I a moron? How do you have more upvotes than the parent comment, is it because youā€™re being more aggressive with your statement? I feel like you didnā€™t quite refute what the parent comment said. Youā€™re just explaining how Chat GPT works, but youā€™re not really saying how it shouldnā€™t use our established media (copyrighted material) as a reference.

      • Phanatik@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        Ā·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I donā€™t control the upvotes so I donā€™t know why thatā€™s directed at me.

        The refutation was based on around a misunderstanding of how LLMs generate their outputs and how the training data assists the LLM in doing what it does. The article itself tells you ChatGPT was trained off of copyrighted material they were not licensed for. The person I responded to suggested that comedians do this with their work but thatā€™s equating the process an LLM uses when producing an output to a comedian writing jokes.

        Edit: Apologies if I do come across aggressive. Since the plagiarism machine has been in full swing, the whole discourse around it has gotten on my nerves. Iā€™m a creative person, Iā€™ve written poems and short stories, Iā€™m writing a novel and I also do programming and a whole host of hobbies so when LLMs are used to put people like me out of a job using my own work, why wouldnā€™t that make me angry? What makes it worse is that Iā€™m having to explain concepts to people regarding LLMs that they continue to defend. I canā€™t stand it so yes, I will come off aggressive.

        • SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          Ā·
          11 months ago

          Sorry, I was essentially emphasizing on my initial point ā€œam I a moron?ā€, lol, because I legitimately didnā€™t get your point at first like others do in this thread.

          I get what you mean now after reading it couple more times

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      11 months ago

      Text prediction seems to be sufficient to explain all verbal communication to me. Until someone comes up with a use case that humans can do that LLMs cannot, and I mean a specific use case not general high level concepts, Iā€™m going to assume human verbal cognition works the same was as an LLM.

      We are absolutely basing our responses on what words are likely to follow which other ones. Itā€™s literally how a baby learns language from those around them.

      • chaos@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        Ā·
        11 months ago

        If you ask an LLM to help you with a legal brief, itā€™ll come up with a bunch of stuff for you, and some of it might even be right. But itā€™ll very likely do things like make up a case that doesnā€™t exist, or misrepresent a real case, and as has happened multiple times now, if you submit that work to a judge without a real lawyer checking it first, youā€™re going to have a bad time.

        Thereā€™s a reason LLMs make stuff up like that, and itā€™s because they have been very, very narrowly trained when compared to a human. The training process is almost entirely getting good at predicting what words follow what other words, but humans get that and so much more. Babies arenā€™t just associating the sounds they hear, theyā€™re also associating the things they see, the things they feel, and the signals their body is sending them. Babies are highly motivated to learn and predict the behavior of the humans around them, and as they get older and more advanced, they get rewarded for creating accurate models of the mental state of others, mastering abstract concepts, and doing things like make art or sing songs. Their brains are many times bigger than even the biggest LLM, their initial state has been primed for success by millions of years of evolution, and the training set is every moment of human life.

        LLMs arenā€™t nearly at that level. Thatā€™s not to say what they do isnā€™t impressive, because it really is. They can also synthesize unrelated concepts together in a stunningly human way, even things that theyā€™ve never been trained on specifically. Theyā€™ve picked up a lot of surprising nuance just from the text theyā€™ve been fed, and itā€™s convincing enough to think that something magical is going on. But ultimately, theyā€™ve been optimized to predict words, and thatā€™s what theyā€™re good at, and although theyā€™ve clearly developed some impressive skills to accomplish that task, itā€™s not even close to human level. They spit out a bunch of nonsense when what they should be saying is ā€œI have no idea how to write a legal document, you need a lawyer for thatā€, but that would require them to have a sense of their own capabilities, a sense of what they know and why they know it and where it all came from, knowledge of the consequences of their actions and a desire to avoid causing harm, and they donā€™t have that. And how could they? Their training didnā€™t include any of that, it was mostly about words.

        One of the reasons LLMs seem so impressive is that human words are a reflection of the rich inner life of the person youā€™re talking to. You say something to a person, and your ideas are broken down and manipulated in an abstract manner in their head, then turned back into words forming a response which they say back to you. LLMs are piggybacking off of that a bit, by getting good at mimicking language they are able to hide that their heads are relatively empty. Spitting out a statistically likely answer to the question ā€œas an AI, do you want to take over the world?ā€ is very different from considering the ideas, forming an opinion about them, and responding with that opinion. LLMs arenā€™t just doing statistics, but you donā€™t have to go too far down that spectrum before the answers start seeming thoughtful.