When Google trained their playing neural network, they trained it to starcraft2 . It was better at it than professional gamer. It trained by watching 100years of play. Or 36500 days of play. Or 876000 hours of play.
Does a human can do that ?
Comment on AI companies have all kinds of arguments against paying for copyrighted content
ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 year agoAgree, it’s not much different from a human learning from all these sources and then applying said knowledge
topinambour_rex@lemmy.world 1 year ago
realharo@lemm.ee 1 year ago
Scale matters. For example
A bunch of random shops having security cameras, where their employees can review footage
Every business in a country having a camera connected to a central surveillance network with facial recognition and search capabilities
Those two things are not the same, even though you could say they’re “not much different”.
Also the similarity between human learning and AI training is highly debatable.
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 1 year ago
Both of your examples are governed by the same set of privacy laws, which talk about consent, purpose and necessity, but not about scale. Legislating around scale open up the inevitable legal quagmires of “what scale is acceptable” and “should activity x be counted the same as activity y to meet the scale-level defined in the law”.
Scale makes a difference, but it shouldn’t make a legal difference w.r.t. the legality of the activity.
ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 year ago
Legally no difference