I hate what AI has become and is being used for, i strongly believe that it could have been used way more ethically, solid example being Perplexity, it shows you the sources being used at the top, being the first thing you see when it give a response. The opposite of this is everything else. Even Gemini, despite it being rather useful in day to day life when I need a quick answer to something when I’m not in the position to hold my phone, like driving, doing dishes, or yard work with my ear buds in
Yes, you’re absolutely right. The first StarCoder model demonstrated that it is in fact possible to train a useful LLM exclusively on permissively licensed material, contrary to OpenAI’s claims. Unfortunately, the main concerns of the leading voices in AI ethics at the time this stuff began to really heat up were a) “alignment” with human values / takeover of super-intelligent AI and b) bias against certain groups of humans (which I characterize as differential alignment, i.e. with some humans but not others). The latter group has since published some work criticizing genAI from a copyright and data dignity standpoint, but their absolute position against the technology in general leaves no room for re-visiting the premise that use of non-permissively licensed work is inevitable. (Incidentally they also hate classification AI as a whole; thus smearing AI detection technology which could help on all fronts of this battle. Here again it’s obviously a matter of responsible deployment; the kind of classification AI that UHC deployed to reject valid health insurance claims, or the target selection AI that IDF has used, are examples of obviously unethical applications in which copyright infringement would be irrelevant.)
There is russian phrase “fight of beaver and donkey”, which loosely means fight of two shits. Copyright is cancer and capitalist abuse of genAI is cancer.
Copyright is actually very important, especially to independent authors, photographers, digital artists, traditional artists, videographers (YouTubers as an example), and especially movie producers. Copyright protects their work from being taken by someone else and claimed as their own, however special cases do exist where other individuals are allowed to use copywritten material that is not theirs, this is where fair use comes into play. If we did not have fair use, but still had Copyright, the large majority of YouTube videos would be illegal, from commentary videos to silly meme videos. So calling Copyright a cancer is like wanting their work to be out in a field of monkeys and hope they don’t notice it, spoiler, they always do.
You are talking about either right for name or right of authorship. I don’t remember which is which, but in normal countries(aka in Europe) it is inalienable right, unlike copyright, which can be sold.
If you want copyright THAT badly, you should demand making it inalienable instead of protecting status quo of total publisher’s control.
EDIT: right for name is to have your name on art, right of authorship is to call yourself author.
EDIT2: copytight outside of capitalism just does not make sense.
I hate what AI has become and is being used for, i strongly believe that it could have been used way more ethically, solid example being Perplexity, it shows you the sources being used at the top, being the first thing you see when it give a response. The opposite of this is everything else. Even Gemini, despite it being rather useful in day to day life when I need a quick answer to something when I’m not in the position to hold my phone, like driving, doing dishes, or yard work with my ear buds in
I get what you mean, but people might read this and think Perplexity is an ethical company.
https://opendatascience.com/perplexity-ai-ceo-offers-to-step-in-amidst-nyt-tech-workers-strike/
Interesting, I definitely see where his mind is at with that offer, and how it was easily misunderstood
Ummmm I don’t think that’s the right take away from this story, though you’re certainly entitled to a different opinion
Yes, you’re absolutely right. The first StarCoder model demonstrated that it is in fact possible to train a useful LLM exclusively on permissively licensed material, contrary to OpenAI’s claims. Unfortunately, the main concerns of the leading voices in AI ethics at the time this stuff began to really heat up were a) “alignment” with human values / takeover of super-intelligent AI and b) bias against certain groups of humans (which I characterize as differential alignment, i.e. with some humans but not others). The latter group has since published some work criticizing genAI from a copyright and data dignity standpoint, but their absolute position against the technology in general leaves no room for re-visiting the premise that use of non-permissively licensed work is inevitable. (Incidentally they also hate classification AI as a whole; thus smearing AI detection technology which could help on all fronts of this battle. Here again it’s obviously a matter of responsible deployment; the kind of classification AI that UHC deployed to reject valid health insurance claims, or the target selection AI that IDF has used, are examples of obviously unethical applications in which copyright infringement would be irrelevant.)
There is russian phrase “fight of beaver and donkey”, which loosely means fight of two shits. Copyright is cancer and capitalist abuse of genAI is cancer.
Copyright is actually very important, especially to independent authors, photographers, digital artists, traditional artists, videographers (YouTubers as an example), and especially movie producers. Copyright protects their work from being taken by someone else and claimed as their own, however special cases do exist where other individuals are allowed to use copywritten material that is not theirs, this is where fair use comes into play. If we did not have fair use, but still had Copyright, the large majority of YouTube videos would be illegal, from commentary videos to silly meme videos. So calling Copyright a cancer is like wanting their work to be out in a field of monkeys and hope they don’t notice it, spoiler, they always do.
You are talking about either right for name or right of authorship. I don’t remember which is which, but in normal countries(aka in Europe) it is inalienable right, unlike copyright, which can be sold.
If you want copyright THAT badly, you should demand making it inalienable instead of protecting status quo of total publisher’s control.
EDIT: right for name is to have your name on art, right of authorship is to call yourself author.
EDIT2: copytight outside of capitalism just does not make sense.