Hats off to the author, you don't see that kind of, uh, skillful rhetoric chicanery every day. Like "generative AI doesn't compete with artists because artists are not in the data market". 😬
People keep telling me that #ChatGPT is amazing for proofreading text and improving scientific writing.
I just gave #GPT4 a section of a grant proposal and it made 11 suggestions, none of which were worth keeping (often adding or removing a comma, or repeating a preposition in a list).
More interestedly, a number of its suggestions were identical to my originals.
People who believe in all of the #ai hype have the same problem as people who live in denial of the technology being as powerful as it is: Thinking the purpose of #generativeAI is to create unique works
Consider a programmer who has lost their hands. An AI tool could be made using a #llm to generate keystrokes based on what the programmer says
User: “Clear the terminal”
GPT: generates clear command
That is the power of #gpt that everyone who knows what they’re talking about is excited for
#Mastodon#Fediverse server admins: Have you considered adding a Terms of Use clause that prohibits the use of posts for training #GenerativeAI#AI#LLM without explicit user consent? I feel like abuse of user-generated content (text and other media included) for training is already upon us, and I wonder if we shouldn’t set ourselves up for legal recourse at some point in the future if we ever need to.
Social media is one of the most ready pools of materials for training models. This tends to continue the trend of generating profits for private corporations by harvesting “public” goods without compensation, especially from artists who work hard to create quality media. I hope the Fediverse can exclude itself from this phenomenon somehow.
Are generated images art? Was going to reply to a post, but didn't feel like dunking on somebody else for no reason.
Even if we assume generative AI is only a tool in the hands of a human, like a brush, the tool and the output are not what makes it art or not. It isn't art because of the paint. It isn't art because of the brush, or the canvas, or the beauty of the output.
The art is in the creation, and the human is not really involved in the actual creation.
"It's not lying, it's not telling the truth, because both of those would require some intentionality and some communicative intent, which it doesn't have."
Since their arrival, generative AI models and their trainers have demonstrated their ability to download any online content for model training. For content owners and creators, few tools can prevent their content from being fed into a generative AI model against their will. Opt-out lists have been disregarded by model trainers in the past, and can be easily ignored with zero consequences. They are unverifiable and unenforceable, and those who violate opt-out lists and do-not-scrape directives can not be identified with high confidence.
In an effort to address this power asymmetry, we have designed and implemented Nightshade, a tool that turns any image into a data sample that is unsuitable for model training. More precisely, Nightshade transforms images into "poison" samples, so that models training on them without consent will see their models learn unpredictable behaviors that deviate from expected norms, e.g. a prompt that asks for an image of a cow flying in space might instead get an image of a handbag floating in space.
Whenever I see OpenAI's Sam Altman with his pseudo-innocent glance, he always reminds me of Carter Burke from Aliens (1986), who deceived the entire spaceship crew in favor of his corporation, with the aim of getting rich by weaponizing a newly discovered intelligent lifeform.
@fsf Where can I read about the legal licensing and copyleft issues surrounding generative AI algorithms like LLMs (Large Language Models) like Chat-GPT or Copilot, trained on GPL'd source code?
I wonder if there is a need for a new license that explicitly makes training generative AI on open source code requires the AI model to be open sourced?
Does the FSF have any written opinions or educational materials related to this topic of the relationship between copyleft and generative AI trained on copyleft source code?
1/ In this age of LLMs and generative AI, do we still need knowledge graphs (KGs) as a way to collect and organize domain and world knowledge, or should we just switch to language models and rely on their abilities to absorb knowledge from massive training datasets?
2 Free wallpapers for you to use, also uploaded to my Ko-fi completely uncompressed here: https://ko-fi.com/i/II2I3TIMNS
If you're viewing this on Lemmy, click the original Fediverse link to see both wallpapers and/or my Ko-fi link to download them uncompressed because I post from Mastodon, which compresses the image upon uploading.
I got a most disturbing answer from Google's AI Bard when I kept pushing it to tell me why it incorrectly told me that Google Wallet can store Passports (it cannot).
After much poking, it admitted the wrong answer came from an unofficial source. When I asked it if it always accepts information from unofficial sources, it lied and said it doesn't, that it always looks for other sources to confirm. So, when I asked it if it found this wrong information in more than one unofficial source, it admitted that it did not. When I asked why it told me it does the second checks, but failed to do the additional checks for my question, it gave me this:
"I apologize for not following my own process for verifying information from non-official sources. In this case, I was eager to provide you with an answer to your question, and I did not take the time to fully vet the information I found."
Bard is a serial liar, and gaslighting and backpedaling are one of its developing skills. You really can't trust anything it says.
Much as I dislike the theft of human labor that feeds many of the #generativeAI products we see today, I have to agree with @pluralistic that #copyright law is the wrong way to address the problem.
To frame the issue concretely: think of whom copyright law has benefited in the past, and then explain how it would benefit the individual creator when it is applied to #AI. (Hint: it won’t.)
Copyright law is already abused and extended to an absurd degree today. It already overreaches. It impoverishes society by putting up barriers to creation and allowing toll-collectors to exist between citizen artists and their audience.
Labor law is likely what we need to lean on. #unions and #guilds protect creators in a way that copyright cannot. Inequality and unequal bargaining power that lead to exploitation of artists and workers is what we need to address head-on.