This isn’t my style, like not even close. If you don’t have a sensible counterpoint to the ones I’ve raised, that doesn’t make me a bad guy who’s trying to trick you. If I have a strong belief in something, I’m going to explain it and if someone sways that belief, vice versa, then amazing, that is the purpose of these discussions.
In case it isn’t known, even the top dogs in AI have publicly expressed the worry that this should be done, they shared this last month. I’m not an executive who created this behemoth to get filthy rich so I can’t tell you how I’d stop it.
Show us the data you’re trained on. If it’s as kosher as you claim, nobody’s sensitive data has been hoarded, and nobody’s works have been stolen in the process, show us. Explain the necessity for the exponential rise in data centers and give more voting power to the citizens surrounding such locations to actually have a say in whether they should be permitted or not. An easy one, stop working corruptively close to one political side or the other. I could probably think all day on this, but these are some good ones for starters.
How do people feel about Roland sounds appearing in instruments from other manufacturers - eg 808,909,303 etc? Does that IP not count in this context? Genuine question.
My post was mainly statements of fact. I hope you’re not trying to disagree with reality.
Intellectual property is a well established legal concept. It gives artists the right to control how their work is used. If someone wants to use your song in a commercial they need your permission, you can negotiate the terms of the deal, and you have the right to say no. If copyright were eliminated, artists would lose that right to control their work, and anyone could use your song for any commercial purpose without your permission and without paying you. Those are all just facts.
I personally believe that using peoples IP in AI training data without their permission violates that right to control the use of your work, but afaik nothing has really been established yet legally on that front.
You can’t copyright a sound but you can copyright a particular recording of a sound. So you could for example sample the analog voices of a 909 and distribute those, but you couldn’t use the sample of the hi hats because Roland owns the copyright to that recording. If you got ahold of the actual hats they sampled and made a new sample from them that would be allowed.
Everyone who has even a passing interest in sci-fi/dystopian fiction, and understands how sociopathic our leadership is, will be perfectly aware and even haunted by the thought of how this technology can and almost certainly will be misused. I don’t think anyone here is arguing the other way on this. What I’m asking y’all, is so what? So what do you suggest anyone do about it? Or is it just that you don’t think any real or theoretical benefit is worth it and you have no further thoughts on the matter, and just want to vent?
There’s a tight relationship and balancing act between copyright, consumer rights, and the general benefit to mankind. I recommend anyone interested to watch this -
Sorry, it was more that you didn’t really meet my counter argument head-on. I was saying that if someone is truly instrinsically motivated and cares about getting cool stuff out to people to enrich their lives that they wouldn’t be dissuaded by the LLMapocalypse. That’s all really.
I absolutely think that no-one under 14/15/16 should have unrestricted access to the internet and smartphones. I don’t think this is a legal issue but a basic parenting one, don’t give your kids a smartphone.
…
A reminder of the context. Your quote and my reply -
I have not claimed anything to do with this. It feels like you are so “sides” brained that you assume I must represent the AI bros and believe everything they do. I don’t. If you feel like somebody has dodgy ideas you should ask them for clarification, “do you think that all the data these models are built on is kosher” or whatever. Do not just assume and use it as a bludgeon for your argument.
If you’re interested, I am aware that some or all of the AI corps are dodgy as fuck and have been proven to steal whatever they feel like.
Correct me if I’ve missed some irony, but the fact you wrote this tells me that you have a problem with understanding nuance, the idea that two seemingly opposing facts can both be true at the same time. I think AI will lead to many very good things for the world, and that it will lead to many bad things for the world. This is true for the internet, cars, most big inventions. Technology is always a double edged sword.
From what I’ve heard most people in the know thought it was rather suspicious that all the AI companies suddenly piped up with the idea that their product is dangerous and needs regulation. I wouldn’t take much of what the tech CEOs say at face value.
Grindr chief executive George Arison expressed similar views when talking to the BBC, suggesting Anthropic and others statements were being made to drum up investor support.
“Because the only way to justify these valuations is to actually claim: ‘I’m going to take over every industry and I’m going to take over every job, and my AI is going to be doing all that work,’” he said.
The proposals have also drawn criticism from those who argue Anthropic and OpenAI are using safety concerns to push a regulatory approach that could insulate them from competition and liability. Anthropic has also faced allegations of a conflict of interest involving an evaluator it has suggested using.
stop financially supporting the companies just so we can get some nifty pet projects off the ground? nobody using AI for video game mods or custom firmwares is being forced to give their money to the oligarchs, they are choosing to. we’re all forced into these systems in a variety of ways, this is not one of them.
Well, no. Intent is nice and all, but whether you’re talking about the (US) legal system, religious laws, corporate sexual harassment policies, basic consent, or most other things where harm is being considered, intentions usually matter a lot less than consequences.
I mean, most drunk drivers don’t intend to kill anyone.
Around here the way people say it is “ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Which is legally true.
But I like the way my HR department puts it better: It doesn’t matter if someone intends for their off-color joke or unwanted grope to be harassment. If the consequence of the bad behavior is that people felt like they were harassed, then guess what? They were.
Even in your own example of using the cell phone to save someone—the consequence is that you don’t want to let someone drown, right? The intention (trying to avoid cell phones) takes a back seat to the consequence (a life saved).
I disagree. The idea that intellectual property rights need to be weakened because the public domain benefits mankind is the big lie pushed by big tech for the past few decades. The greatest evidence that public domain is neither necessary or desirable is the absolute flowering of recorded music over the past century during which time there were almost zero public domain music recordings due to a particular historical quirk of copyright law.
Intellectual property is the benefit to mankind because it allows artists to make a living from their work which directly drives innovation, creativity, and the creation of more work. (speaking purely copyright here, patents are another issue)
Even the Soviet Union had their own form of copyright laws. Check out this map of which countries have signed the Berne Convention, recognizing the right of artists to control their intellectual property.
I don’t think some vibe coder’s $20 is going to make a big difference either way, but there’s always the Chinese AI companies if you can’t bear to give money to the domestic ones.
Thank you. Yeah I’m very supportive of not funding awful companies, like I’m quite reluctant to give the big ones my money again. I know there’s some smaller alternatives which may be much better in this regard, maybe this one -
Like I mentioned a while ago I think even if every consumer decided to stop using or funding it, the governmental and military stuff would continue unabated, because sociopaths/power/control etc. Unless something incredibly drastic or catastrophic happens we are moving into a world where this tech will be affecting our lives. Personally I think it’s probably better that the general populace at least has a familiarity with it.
I’m also conflicted in the sense that I think it’s hard to say that people shouldn’t use a tech that’s clearly changing so much around them, like a lot of people might be able to lift themselves out of a poor or stagnant financial situation by leveraging AIs to make things or start businesses. And yes I’m aware that giving money to oligarchs to do this probably isn’t a great long term strategy, hence why I would advocate and remain hopeful for smaller players and open source or local alternatives.
Just to be clear I’m not necessarily advocating for that, some tweaks to prevent DMCA abuse maybe.
Congress ostensibly passed the “anti-circumvention” provisions of the DMCA to discourage copyright “pirates” from defeating DRM and other content access or copy restrictions on copyrighted works, and to ban the “black box” devices intended for that purpose. In practice the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions have done little to stop “Internet piracy.” Yet the DMCA has become a serious threat that jeopardizes fair use, impedes competition and innovation, and chills free expression and scientific research. If you circumvent DRM locks for noninfringing fair uses or create the tools to do so you might be on the receiving end of a lawsuit.
The DMCA “safe harbors” protect service providers from monetary liability based on the allegedly infringing activities of third parties. To receive these protections service providers must comply with the conditions set forth in Section 512, including “notice and takedown” procedures that give copyright holders a quick and easy way to disable access to allegedly infringing content. Section 512 also contains provisions allowing users to challenge improper takedowns. Without these protections, the risk of potential copyright liability would prevent many online intermediaries from providing services such as hosting and transmitting user-generated content. Thus the safe harbors, while imperfect, have been essential to the growth of the Internet as an engine for innovation and free expression.
I would be very wary of copyright laws strengthening in ways that further limit the consumer’s right to truly own and modify their own stuff. Like if firmware hacking was severly cracked down upon legally that would really suck. In many cases it’s essential for long term maintenance and compatibility, and regardless I think we absolutely have the right to open up the inner guts of our gear and make modifications.
Please refrain from flagging posts for no reason, thanks.
I love this post, and agree. Our views are limited.
Even just the fact we are all into synths etc… we are very specific demographic!
Absolutely agree, AI is a broader field which includes LLM’s. Personally, I’m referring to AI in a broader sense, that’s why I say ‘AI’ not ‘LLM’ in my posts.
I think that eventually the distinctions between AI/MI/AGI/LLM will eventually disappear. We’re just at the beginning.
No, no joke.
I simultaneously believe two, seemingly conflicting things… that AI, or indeed, any other significant advances in technology, have the potentials to be very helpful and also very harmful to humanity, and the world… at the same time.
Thank the universe someone gets it! Exactly this!
Some will look and see the (very real) harm AI is causing. Some will look and see the (also very real) help that AI is giving.
Both can be true. Both are true. Both will keep being true.
Any attempts to quantify these two things… is pointlessly subjective and unscientific. That’s fine, of course. We’re allowed opinions. We’re allowed to express them. It’s good to talk.
But let’s be aware enough to realise… that none of us can see the whole picture. None of us can predict the future. None of us can say anything with 100% certainty.
The internet will not cease to exist, or cease to be helpful, not realistic.
What will happen is this: (I can predict the future unlike the rest of you morons )
The way we interface and interact with the internet will change. AI will become a ‘bridge’ between ourselves, and the internet (which is data, really).
AI will become a way that we can search for, curate, accept or reject data.
The struggle will be, maintaining control of the AI during this process. Corporations will have their own agendas which will not match with ours.
It will be a constant battle to make AI work for us, rather than further the aims of the big corporations.
We will win this battle.
We’ll win it, by not fighting amongst ourselves, by choosing and rejecting carefully, by examining our own values, and being open and honest with ourselves and others.
You can’t choose how much intelligence you’re born with… lots of intelligent people here. Let’s just try to learn from each other and support each other.
As intelligent as that statement once sounded, it’s become a cheap and cowardly cop out (No personal attack intended), given the double standards exercised in recent weeks among world leaders regarding exclusion, censorship and regulating AI (let’s not mention names).
But we’re not shapes.
I don’t know the intricacies of how AI works and I don’t pretend to. It would be good if AI?companies who know fuck all about health care would stop pretending they do.
But these are dead serious issues that deserve much more attention than they get now. It almost feels like nobody seems to really care and just continue using the technology as is.
Which is, imo, also a step in normalizing unethical behavior and large scale resource hoarding technology—“because, yes, we did that with AI, so whatever right?”.
We can start today if we want. No more usage of AI technology from companies which:
Have not legally used the data sources it was trained on, can’t provide us with verifyable documentation regarding this or can prove that no copyright was violated
Use jet engine-powered data centers or any other fosill fueled tech on such a large scale
Are not doing anything to prevent misuse or education how to safely use their technology
Are not run by megalomaniacs who are completely out of touch with reality and do not care a single bit about the enourmous social impact or waste of resources
Then we’ll eventually find a way how we can safely use this technology without all the negative impact it has now and solve world problems like climate change, poverty, human rights and play super mario bros on a Digitakt.
Humans can be like that sometimes, noisy, chaotic, quiet, contemplative… a range of emotions.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t get on with everyone you meet online.
That said, I’m sorry if I’ve upset you.
I try and remember there’s an actual human being behind each reply (or is it AI replying? )
I know you’re not ‘quote mining’ deliberately, but just to say - that’s a little out of context, the whole sentence was:
I was just saying: we decide our intent of how we use AI. To help or harm.
Of course you’re absolutely right, that consequences are the most important thing… but we can’t always predict them, or choose them.
We can only choose our intentions in the beginning…
And then learn to better predict consequences.
And then update our intentions.
Much like a brain… or an AI
Just researching this now actually - Prospective Configuration (human brain) vs Backpropagation (AI)… it’s very interesting, outside of my understanding but still fascinating.
Em… not really sure what you’re talking about here, tbh? What is there to ‘cop out’ of?
The statement I made isn’t intelligent or not intelligent… it’s simply true, and will clearly always be true. Just to clarify, the essence of it was:
People will always use a tool for a huge variety of reasons.
It’s human nature and may never change.
I agree with the whole post!
I don’t know the full solution. But you’re right that more awareness is the way forward to make more informed desicions.
As long as Mario arrives of course, that’s the main thing
Correct me if I’ve missed some irony, but the fact you wrote this tells me that you have a problem with understanding nuance. I gave you a direct answer to your question. I’m not sure how you interpreted this as something directed at you in any way. Did you think I was legitimately asking you to show me your data as well? You asked what regulations and legislature I’d like to see. I answered.
This kind of only instills my overall opinions if true. I don’t believe this would ever be the strategy of an entity with good intentions for starters. Whether you’re doing it because you have a fear of what it could do to humanity, or whether you want to be “insulated from competition and liability”, those two explanations kinda only lead to bad.
For what it’s worth, just in case anybody’s trying to flip down some faces for the game of Who’s Who, and just because I’m knee deep in the debate here, I’m not flagging any of these and I’m not entirely sure why one would have for this specific post. I tend to largely disagree with your mindset on this topic, but that doesn’t mean I think you should be silenced.
And to circle this all the way back to my triggering this morning:
I chimed in specifically because of your quantifying of this subject.
)
)
