humans do the same thing, we constantly intake others output and our output is absolutely going to be based on what we have experienced to some extent, the important part is if it is transformational right? (in regards to IP/copyright laws and such)
With crypto at least there was an argument to be made for comparing the electrical requirements for all alternative banking solutions as a comparison, which I never once saw. For AI it depends entirely on the generation mechanism, not to mention you can self host locally and ensure the type of energy in use.
There is a difference between seeing and being influenced by a work and consuming it and regurgitating the pieces for commercial benefit. Also humans can consciously choose a set of influences or a particular style to work in, excluding the others, as they see fit. Influence is not replication; if you as a human are replicating copyrighted works then that’s a different matter.
Seeing how fast the planet is burning is not particularly helpful in putting out the fire, so such comparison mitigates none of the harm caused by crypto mining. It was mined (after the early-adopter idealist phase anyway) pretty much exclusively for the purpose of financial speculation. Either way, whether AI consumes more or less, it is consuming for often questionable benefit to its users and significant benefit to its corporate owners. Also you can ‘self-host’ crypto mining too, just not very effectively.
I have only recently learned about this possibility, but I can’t imagine it’s anywhere near as effective as one hosted on OpenAI’s servers or w/e.
There is, but that distinction also applies to AI creations, you can clearly see (or maybe you haven’t yet?) it’s not simply regurgitating, it can fundamentally transform its dataset with what it outputs. Just like humans, we can just straight copy someone else and claim it as our own but that’s obviously just copying right? I don’t understand why AntiAI people can’t see the difference.
Yeah, I hate the direction crypto has gone, been following BTC since 2011 and the intent has been distorted beyond recognition. I’m not sure of the landscape these days for mining, but it absolutely was a majority individuals rather then corporations, it was literally all self host. Even ASICs are still intended to be ran at home, people aren’t paying other people to mine for them.
Look into it further, while yes gigantic megacorp server farms are obviously going to be generally better performance wise, that’s not really an argument against self host open source alternatives for things that do not require that amount of processing power. Plus there’s a lot of potential use cases for smaller localLLMs running directly on relatively low power devices (like our smartphones)
I mean… I suppose that’s fair. I have not messed a ton with AI image generation, I’ve just tinkered a bit here and there, but I’ve seen some interesting stuff. The thing is though, and I realize we’re getting a bit into the weeds here, but I don’t think AI art is art because it lacks intentionality. Art, whether visual or otherwise, is fundamentally about communication. It’s about trying to evoke something in the viewer and making some kind of connection with them on the emotional level. AI isn’t trying to convey or evoke anything, so I don’t believe that it’s art, but I’m not saying there are no good arguments to the contrary or anything.
Honestly while crypto might’ve started out as a noble idea it was not a great solution to the problem it presented, and the technology has since been a solution in search of a problem. Meanwhile the crypto itself pretty quickly fell to rampant speculation and has effectively turned into a giant pump-and-dump. People aren’t paying other people to mine for them, what they’re doing is buying huge power- and water-hungry data centers to mine crypto for them. I live in Texas and we have several big ones here (in a mostly dry hot state with frequent power and water shortages in the summers, so that was a brilliant decision, lol, but I guess power is cheap here), so we’re long past the days where an individual could accomplish much of anything in that arena.
Someone posted a reply about AI Horde which I’ve been looking into, it’s pretty interesting. Also I’m looking at maybe trying to self-host something like ChatGPT (I’ve been working on a writing project and it’s been invaluable to help me brainstorm, work out structure, etc, so I don’t want to lose access when it gets enshittified) but I’m still very much at the ‘seeing what my options are’ stage.
I accidentally deleted my comment sorry here it is again
Current models are utterly dependent on using others’ work without permission or compensation,
They are not dependent on it, no. They simply do that because it’s the cheapest way to build a huge dataset to train on.
the people behind AI companies are now advocating for the abolishing of IP law so they can exploit artists even more
I advocate for the total abolishment of copyright, IP and any adjacent laws for the exact opposite reason; artists would not need copyright and innovators would not need IP to protect themselves if we lived in a society that nurtured a healthier culture of sharing. In its most extreme form, I want to get rid of money such that nobody, artists especially, need not money to justify their continued existence. Human beings were not meant to be enslaved to a monetary structure and it has become the driving force of misery all around the world.
will not fail to succumb to the same enshittification
It’s pretty clear to me that you haven’t participated in the open source AI race because we don’t need the corporate AIs. I don’t say that like a ‘lmao ur not as smart as me’ but open source AI development, especially stable diffusion and chat LLMs, has caught up to corporate AIs in every way but training data, because unlike the corporations, they walk a thin legal line. I’ve been following it closely since GPT2. It was open source that first came up with the idea of using smaller models to do specific things instead of trying to train one huge model to do everything.
I accidentally deleted my comment sorry here it is again
You also replied to the wrong comment, but I got you. ;)
They are not dependent on it, no. They simply do that because it’s the cheapest way to build a huge dataset to train on.
Tell that to OpenAI. They’re not the only ones who have come out against IP law in the wake of the kerfuffle about how it relates to AI.
I advocate for the total abolishment of copyright
I am generally anti-IP law myself, so I only point it out because the likes of OpenAI and Elon Musk trying to undermine it shows just how desperately dependent they are upon unlicensed content to train their models, and how that makes an interesting contrast to the fact that they hire teams of lawyers to go after people who violate their IP.
IP and any adjacent laws for the exact opposite reason; artists would not need copyright and innovators would not need IP to protect themselves if we lived in a society that nurtured a healthier culture of sharing. In its most extreme form, I want to get rid of money such that nobody, artists especially, need not money to justify their continued existence. Human beings were not meant to be enslaved to a monetary structure and it has become the driving force of misery all around the world.
Yeah, I’m a pinko commie who also thinks human society should exist for the sole purpose of meeting the needs of all of its members too, but that’s a conversation for another time.
It’s pretty clear to me that you haven’t participated in the open source AI race because we don’t need the corporate AIs.
I honestly didn’t even know it was a thing until recently, so nope, I really have not. I have read about it some though. I use ChatGPT to help me structure writing, worldbuild, etc, and - like most people who use corporate AI - find it easier (for the moment) then installing a bunch of shit and fiddling with it for hours (so basically it has the same barriers to entry as widespread adoption of linux - if it doesn’t just work out of the box, most people don’t give a shit how much better it is) only to thrash my GPU into an early grave, and so do millions of other people. I am also skeptical about open source AI’s ability to compete long-term on practically any grounds (accessibility, volume of training data, responsiveness, advanced model features, integration with existing software, etc), but I would be quite happy to be proven wrong on that count.
Tell that to OpenAI. They’re not the only ones who have come out against IP law in the wake of the kerfuffle about how it relates to AI.
This is one of those cases where two groups seem like they are united on a subject but aren’t really. OpenAI claims they want to abolish copyright for the good of themselves and AI, but that isn’t really true. They just want immunity from it, complete death of copyright doesn’t benefit them or any of the companies, since they’d lose their moral high horse against civilians using their material without paying them, as well as their ability to legally retaliate.
Really their claimed stance against copyright doesn’t undermine any of the anarchist and pirate arguments against IP law as it is today and as a concept, it doesn’t even align with it. It’s no different than right wingers saying there’s a war on science or that they want to protect women and children from groomers. It’s just obfuscating or lying about their intentions. OpenAI is just claiming their against copyright because it’s easier to swallow than saying they wish to be immune from copyright, maybe even be able to usurp individual people’s copyrights outright.
This was not an argument about how everyone who has talked about avoiding or abolishing IP law is the same or has the same intentions, this was an argument about how AI is utterly dependent upon unlicensed content, and as evidence goes, them saying ‘gosh we really need to be able to skirt/get rid of/whatever this to keep going’ is, regardless of the complexities of the situation, in itself evidence of that fact.
The specifics of their particular flavor of opposition to being bound by IP law, while interesting, don’t particularly matter to that argument. But thanks for the added context.
humans do the same thing, we constantly intake others output and our output is absolutely going to be based on what we have experienced to some extent, the important part is if it is transformational right? (in regards to IP/copyright laws and such)
With crypto at least there was an argument to be made for comparing the electrical requirements for all alternative banking solutions as a comparison, which I never once saw. For AI it depends entirely on the generation mechanism, not to mention you can self host locally and ensure the type of energy in use.
self host… Again
There is, but that distinction also applies to AI creations, you can clearly see (or maybe you haven’t yet?) it’s not simply regurgitating, it can fundamentally transform its dataset with what it outputs. Just like humans, we can just straight copy someone else and claim it as our own but that’s obviously just copying right? I don’t understand why AntiAI people can’t see the difference.
Yeah, I hate the direction crypto has gone, been following BTC since 2011 and the intent has been distorted beyond recognition. I’m not sure of the landscape these days for mining, but it absolutely was a majority individuals rather then corporations, it was literally all self host. Even ASICs are still intended to be ran at home, people aren’t paying other people to mine for them.
Look into it further, while yes gigantic megacorp server farms are obviously going to be generally better performance wise, that’s not really an argument against self host open source alternatives for things that do not require that amount of processing power. Plus there’s a lot of potential use cases for smaller localLLMs running directly on relatively low power devices (like our smartphones)
I mean… I suppose that’s fair. I have not messed a ton with AI image generation, I’ve just tinkered a bit here and there, but I’ve seen some interesting stuff. The thing is though, and I realize we’re getting a bit into the weeds here, but I don’t think AI art is art because it lacks intentionality. Art, whether visual or otherwise, is fundamentally about communication. It’s about trying to evoke something in the viewer and making some kind of connection with them on the emotional level. AI isn’t trying to convey or evoke anything, so I don’t believe that it’s art, but I’m not saying there are no good arguments to the contrary or anything.
Honestly while crypto might’ve started out as a noble idea it was not a great solution to the problem it presented, and the technology has since been a solution in search of a problem. Meanwhile the crypto itself pretty quickly fell to rampant speculation and has effectively turned into a giant pump-and-dump. People aren’t paying other people to mine for them, what they’re doing is buying huge power- and water-hungry data centers to mine crypto for them. I live in Texas and we have several big ones here (in a mostly dry hot state with frequent power and water shortages in the summers, so that was a brilliant decision, lol, but I guess power is cheap here), so we’re long past the days where an individual could accomplish much of anything in that arena.
Someone posted a reply about AI Horde which I’ve been looking into, it’s pretty interesting. Also I’m looking at maybe trying to self-host something like ChatGPT (I’ve been working on a writing project and it’s been invaluable to help me brainstorm, work out structure, etc, so I don’t want to lose access when it gets enshittified) but I’m still very much at the ‘seeing what my options are’ stage.
I accidentally deleted my comment sorry here it is again
They are not dependent on it, no. They simply do that because it’s the cheapest way to build a huge dataset to train on.
I advocate for the total abolishment of copyright, IP and any adjacent laws for the exact opposite reason; artists would not need copyright and innovators would not need IP to protect themselves if we lived in a society that nurtured a healthier culture of sharing. In its most extreme form, I want to get rid of money such that nobody, artists especially, need not money to justify their continued existence. Human beings were not meant to be enslaved to a monetary structure and it has become the driving force of misery all around the world.
It’s pretty clear to me that you haven’t participated in the open source AI race because we don’t need the corporate AIs. I don’t say that like a ‘lmao ur not as smart as me’ but open source AI development, especially stable diffusion and chat LLMs, has caught up to corporate AIs in every way but training data, because unlike the corporations, they walk a thin legal line. I’ve been following it closely since GPT2. It was open source that first came up with the idea of using smaller models to do specific things instead of trying to train one huge model to do everything.
You also replied to the wrong comment, but I got you. ;)
Tell that to OpenAI. They’re not the only ones who have come out against IP law in the wake of the kerfuffle about how it relates to AI.
I am generally anti-IP law myself, so I only point it out because the likes of OpenAI and Elon Musk trying to undermine it shows just how desperately dependent they are upon unlicensed content to train their models, and how that makes an interesting contrast to the fact that they hire teams of lawyers to go after people who violate their IP.
Yeah, I’m a pinko commie who also thinks human society should exist for the sole purpose of meeting the needs of all of its members too, but that’s a conversation for another time.
I honestly didn’t even know it was a thing until recently, so nope, I really have not. I have read about it some though. I use ChatGPT to help me structure writing, worldbuild, etc, and - like most people who use corporate AI - find it easier (for the moment) then installing a bunch of shit and fiddling with it for hours (so basically it has the same barriers to entry as widespread adoption of linux - if it doesn’t just work out of the box, most people don’t give a shit how much better it is) only to thrash my GPU into an early grave, and so do millions of other people. I am also skeptical about open source AI’s ability to compete long-term on practically any grounds (accessibility, volume of training data, responsiveness, advanced model features, integration with existing software, etc), but I would be quite happy to be proven wrong on that count.
This is one of those cases where two groups seem like they are united on a subject but aren’t really. OpenAI claims they want to abolish copyright for the good of themselves and AI, but that isn’t really true. They just want immunity from it, complete death of copyright doesn’t benefit them or any of the companies, since they’d lose their moral high horse against civilians using their material without paying them, as well as their ability to legally retaliate.
Really their claimed stance against copyright doesn’t undermine any of the anarchist and pirate arguments against IP law as it is today and as a concept, it doesn’t even align with it. It’s no different than right wingers saying there’s a war on science or that they want to protect women and children from groomers. It’s just obfuscating or lying about their intentions. OpenAI is just claiming their against copyright because it’s easier to swallow than saying they wish to be immune from copyright, maybe even be able to usurp individual people’s copyrights outright.
This was not an argument about how everyone who has talked about avoiding or abolishing IP law is the same or has the same intentions, this was an argument about how AI is utterly dependent upon unlicensed content, and as evidence goes, them saying ‘gosh we really need to be able to skirt/get rid of/whatever this to keep going’ is, regardless of the complexities of the situation, in itself evidence of that fact.
The specifics of their particular flavor of opposition to being bound by IP law, while interesting, don’t particularly matter to that argument. But thanks for the added context.
Replying to wrong comment :p
I did see this reply already in the thread though.
o fuq whatever I’m just gonna leave it lmao