Comment on The Irony of 'You Wouldn't Download a Car' Making a Comeback in AI Debates
dhork@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Bullshit. AI are not human. We shouldn’t treat them as such. AI are not creative. They just regurgitate what they are trained on. We call what it does “learning”, but that doesn’t mean we should elevate what they do to be legally equal to human learning.
It’s this same kind of twisted logic that makes people think Corporations are People.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
Ok, ignore this specific company and technology.
In the abstract, if you wanted to make artificial intelligence, how would you do it without using the training data that we humans use to train non-artificial intelligence?
doctortran@lemm.ee 1 week ago
We are human beings. The comparison is false on it’s face because what you all are calling AI isn’t in any conceivable way comparable to the complexity and versatility of a human mind, yet you continue to spit this lie out, over and over again, trying to play it up like it’s Data from Star Trek.
This model isn’t “learning” anything in any way that is even remotely comparable to how humans learn. Moreover, human beings make their own choices, they aren’t actual tools.
They pointed a tool at copyrighted works and told it to copy it, so some math, and regurgitate it. What the AI “does” is not relevant, what the people that programmed it to do with that copyrighted information is what matters.
There is no intelligence here except theirs. There is no intent here except there’s.
drosophila@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
I do think the complexity of artificial neural networks is overstated. A real neuron is a lot more complex than an artificial one, and real neuron’s are not simply feed forward like ANNs (which have to be because they are trained using back-propagation), but instead have their own spontaneous activity (which kinda implies that real neural networks don’t learn using stochastic gradient descent with back-propagation). But to say that there’s nothing at all comparable between the way humans learn and the way ANNs learn is wrong IMO.
If you read books such as V.S. Ramachandran and Sandra Blakeslee’s Phantoms in the Brain or Oliver Sacks’ The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat you will see lots of descriptions of patients with anosognosia brought on by brain injury. These are people who, for example, are unable to see but also incapable of recognizing this inability. If you ask them to describe what they see in front of them they will make something up on the spot (in a process called confabulation) and not realize they’ve done it. They’ll tell you what they’ve made up while believing that they’re telling the truth. (Vision is just one example, anosognosia can manifest in many different cognitive domains).
It is V.S Ramachandran’s belief that there are two processes that occur in the Brain, a confabulator (or “yes man” so to speak) and an anomaly detector (or “critic”). The yes-man’s job is to offer up explanations for sensory input that fit within the existing mental model of the world, whereas the critic’s job is to advocate for changing the world-model to fit the sensory input. In patients with anosognosia something has gone wrong in the connection between the critic and the yes man in a particular cognitive domain, and as a result the yes-man is the only one doing any work. Even in a healthy brain you can see the effects of the interplay between these two processes, such as with the placebo effect and in hallucinations brought on by sensory deprivation.
I think ANNs in general and LLMs in particular are similar to the yes-man process, but lack a critic to go along with it.
What implications does that have on copyright law? I don’t know. Real neurons in a petri dish have already been trained to play games like DOOM and and control the yoke of a simulated airplane. If they were trained instead to somehow draw pictures what would the legal implications of that be?
There’s a belief that laws and political systems are derived from some sort of deep philosophical insight, but I think most of the time they’re really just whatever works in practice. So, what I’m trying to say is that we can just agree that what OpenAI does is bad and should be illegal without having to come up with a moral imperative that forces us to ban it.
masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
If you fundamentally do not think that artificial intelligences can created, the onus is on yo uto explain why it’s impossible.
Otherwise, I asked you to examine a thought experiment where you are trying to build an artificial intelligence.
Or you over complicating yourself to seem more important and special. Definitely no way that most people would be biased towards that, is there?
Oh please do go ahead and show us your proof that free will exists! Thank god you finally solved that one! I heard people were really stressing about it for a while!
“I don’t know how this works but it’s math and that scares me!”
I guess a broken clock is right twice a day…
pmc@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
If we have an AI that’s equivalent to humanity in capability of learning, creative output, and transformation, it would be immoral to just use it as a tool. At least that’s how I see it.
Geobloke@lemm.ee 1 week ago
And that’s all paid for. Think how much just the average high school graduate has has invested in them, ai companies want all that, but for free
masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
It’s not though.
A huge amount of what you learn, someone else paid for, then they taught that knowledge to the next person, and so on. By the time you learned it, it had effectively been pirated and copied by human brains several times before it got to you.
Geobloke@lemm.ee 1 week ago
If only there was a profession that exchanges knowledge for money. Some one who “teaches.” I wonder who would pay them
Wiz@midwest.social 1 week ago
The things is, they can have scads of free stuff that is not copyrighted. But they are greedy and want copyrighted stuff, too
masterspace@lemmy.ca 1 week ago
We all should. Copyright is fucking horseshit.
It costs literally nothing to make a digital copy of something. There is ZERO reason to restrict access to things.
ContrarianTrail@lemm.ee 1 week ago
Making a copy is free. Making the original is not. I don’t expect a professional photographer to hand out their work for free because making copies of it costs nothing.
Wiz@midwest.social 1 week ago
You sound like someone who has not tried to make an artistic creation for profit.