Technology

parent

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I'm literally saying (an aspect of) process matters, how are we saying the same thing?

parent

[–] countablenewt@allthingstech.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

@zbyte64 from what I understand, you’re referring to the process at scale—the amount of information the AI can take in is inhuman—which I’m not disagreeing with

None of which is relevant to my original point: the scale of their operations, which has already been used countless times in copyright law

The scale at which they operate and their intention to profit is the basis for their infringement, how they’re doing it would be largely irrelevant in a copyright case, is my point

parent

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

I don't understand how when I say "agency" or "an aspect of the process" one would think I'm talking about the volume of information and not the quality.

parent

[–] countablenewt@allthingstech.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

@zbyte64 1) In no way is quality a part of that equation and 2) In what other contexts is quality ever a part of the equation? I mean I can go look at some Monets and paint some shitty water lillies, is that somehow problematic?

parent

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I can go look at some Monets and paint some shitty water lillies, is that somehow problematic?

If we're using your paintings as training data for a Monet copy, then it could be.

Are we even talking about AI if we're saying data quality doesn't matter?

parent

[–] countablenewt@allthingstech.social -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

@zbyte64 data quality, again, was out of the scope of what I was talking about originally

Which, again, was that legal precedent would suggest that the *how* is largely irrelevant in copyright cases, they’re mostly focused on *why* and the *scale of the operation*

I’m not getting sued for copyright infringement by the NYT because I used inspect element to delete content to read behind their paywall, OpenAI is

parent

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I was narrowly taking issue with the comparison to how humans learn, I really don't care about copyrights.

parent

[–] countablenewt@allthingstech.social 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

@zbyte64 where am I wrong? The process is effectively the same: you get a set of training data (a textbook) and a set of validation data (a test) and voila, I’m trained

To learn how to draw an image of a thing, you look at the thing a lot (training data) and try sketching it out (validation data) until it’s right

How the data is acquired is irrelevant, I can pirate the textbook or trespass to find a particular flower, that doesn’t mean I’m learning differently than someone who paid for it

parent

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 point 2 years ago*

Do we assume everything read in a textbook is correct? When we get feedback on drawing, do we accept the feedback as always correct and applicable? We filter and groom data for the AI so it doesn't need to learn these things.