This is an issue for the AI user though. And I do agree that needs to be more conscious in people’s minds. But I think time will change that. Perhaps when the photo camera came out there were some shmucks that took pictures of people’s artworks and claimed it as their own because the novelty of the technology allowed that for a bit, but eventually those people are properly differentiated from people properly using it.

That would be true if they used material that was paywalled. But the vast majority of the training information used is publicly available. There’s plenty of freely available books and information that you only require an internet connection for to access, and learn from.

Your first point is misguided and incorrect. If you’ve ever learned something by ‘cramming’, a.k.a. just repeating ingesting material until you remember it completely. You don’t need the book in front of you anymore to write the material down verbatim in a test. You still discarded your training material despite you knowing the exact contents. If this was all the AI could do it would indeed be an infringement machine. But you said it yourself, you need to trick the AI to do this. It’s not made to do this, but certain sentences are indeed almost certain to show up with the right conditioning. Which is indeed something anyone using an AI should be aware of, and avoid that kind of conditioning. (Which in practice often just means, don’t ask the AI to make something infringing)

This would be a good point, if this is what the explicit purpose of the AI was. Which it isn’t. It can quote certain information verbatim despite not containing that data verbatim, through the process of learning, for the same reason we can.

I can ask you to quote famous lines from books all day as well. That doesn’t mean that you knowing those lines means you infringed on copyright. Now, if you were to put those to paper and sell them, you might get a cease and desist or a lawsuit. Therein lies the difference. Your goal would be explicitly to infringe on the specific expression of those words. Any human that would explicitly try to get an AI to produce infringing material… would be infringing. And unknowing infringement… well there are countless court cases where both sides think they did nothing wrong.

You don’t even need AI for that, if you followed the Infinite Monkey Theorem and just happened to stumble upon a work falling under copyright, you still could not sell it even if it was produced by a purely random process.

Another great example is the Mona Lisa. Most people know what it looks like and if they had sufficient talent could mimic it 1:1. However, there are numerous adaptations of the Mona Lisa that are not infringing (by today’s standards), because they transform the work to the point where it’s no longer the original expression, but a re-expression of the same idea. Anything less than that is pretty much completely safe infringement wise.

You’re right though that OpenAI tries to cover their ass by implementing safeguards. Which is to be expected because it’s a legal argument in court that once they became aware of situations they have to take steps to limit harm. They can indeed not prevent it completely, but it’s the effort that counts. Practically none of that kind of moderation is 100% effective. Otherwise we’d live in a pretty good world.

Honestly, that’s why open source AI is such a good thing for small creatives. Hate it or love it, anyone wielding AI with the intention to make new expression will be much more safe and efficient to succeed until they can grow big enough to hire a team with specialists. People often look at those at the top but ignore the things that can grow from the bottom and actually create more creative expression.

I wish some people that liked Queen and these styles of music would realize they are not immune from the subjectiveness of music tastes. It’s one of the bigger ‘bubbles’, if not the biggest, but certainly not the only one or I’d argue, the majority.

I like my choice of music to the point where most pieces invoke more joy and emotion to me than Bohemian Rhapsody, and I find it somewhat strange that even so long after it was released it still remains on top. That’s completely different from what I like, where a new song can pretty much take the top spot at any time if it’s good enough. If it’s the same song every time, that’s something I wouldn’t consider a healthy level of innovation for a genre, but rather a sign that it has reached it’s peak and has became seemingly permanently stale. At that point it feels to me that deep nostalgia keeps it in place, rather than it actually being the best current music has to offer.

There’s nothing wrong with that though, nostalgia is a valid reason to like a song. But often some people that like that kind of music become militantly angry if you point that out. And then cite popularity contests that only people that like that kind of music participate in, to somehow say that everyone likes their music. And that in turn makes those contests seem kind of disingenuous since they claim they are finding the best music of all time. It’s self selecting, because anyone that can’t boost their specific music to the top because their genre still has healthy levels of competition and can’t produce one piece that everyone agrees on, simply won’t bother.

Just my two cents to an unpopular opinion. Again I don’t mind people liking Queen’s music, but I’ve had people literally be offended because I didn’t want to listen to a group of men scream “Mama mia” in an attempt to burst my ear drums because they want the volume to be at 300% when that part starts, only to then also sing along for another volume boost. Anyone else doing that with their music would be told to mind their own business and keep the volume reasonable. It’s the double standard and the denial of contrary opinions that I don’t like. You can’t expect everyone to like your music.

If you’re here because of the AI headline, this is important to read.

We’re looking at how we can use local, on-device AI models – i.e., more private – to enhance your browsing experience further. One feature we’re starting with next quarter is AI-generated alt-text for images inserted into PDFs, which makes it more accessible to visually impaired users and people with learning disabilities.

They are implementing AI how it should be. Don’t let all the shitty companies blind you to the fact what we call AI has positive sides.

The thing is, I’ve seen statements like this before. Except when I heard it, it was being used to justify ignoring women’s experiences and feelings in regard to things like sexual harassment and feeling unsafe, since that’s “just a feeling” as well. It wasn’t okay then, and it’s not okay the other way around. The truth is that feelings do matter, on both sides. Everyone should feel safe and welcome in their surroundings. And how much so that is, is reflected in how those people feel.

The outcome of men feeling being respected and women feeling safe are not mutually exclusive. The sad part is that someone who is reading this here is far more likely to be an ally than a foe, yet the people who need to hear the intended message the most will most likely never hear it nor be bothered by it. There’s a stick being wedged here that is only meant to divide, and oh my god is it working.

The original post about bears has completely lost all meaning and any semblance of discussion is lost because the metaphor is inflammatory by design - sometimes that’s a good thing, to highlight through absurdity. But metaphors are fragile - if it’s very likely to be misunderstood or offensive, the message is lost in emotion. Personally I think this metaphor is just highly ineffective at getting the message across, as it has driven people who would stand by the original message to the other side due to the many uncharitable interpretations it presents. And among the crowd of reasonable people are those who confirm those interpretations and muddy the water to make women seem like misandrists, and men like sexual assault deniers. This meme is simply terrible and perhaps we can move on to a better version of it that actually gets the message across well, instead of getting people at each other’s throat.

Depends on where you live I suppose. Irrational AI hate is something I only really encounter online. Then again my country has pretty good worker protections, so there’s less reason to be afraid of AI.

Its funny how something like this get posted every few days and people keep falling for it like its somehow going to end AI. The people that make these models are acutely aware of how to avoid model collapse.

It’s totally fine for AI models to train on AI generated content that is of high enough quality. Part of the research to train models is building data sets with a text description matching the content, and filtering out content that is not organic enough (or even specifically including it as a ‘bad’ example for the AI to avoid). AI can produce material indistinguishable from human work, and it produces material that wasn’t originally in the training data. There’s no reason that can’t be good training data itself.

Your heart might stop you, eventually.

Perhaps. The world can use more kindness when despite everything, loneliness is at an all time high. It’s not a fix but maybe it can be a brake on someone’s downwards spiral.

I’d prefer and love to see someone new match George Carlin’s level too though, much more than someone trying to become him. I dont think we’ve quite had a chance to savor the good side of AI yet, but hey you’re entitled to your opinion.

That’s a pretty sloppy reason. A nuanced topic is not well suited to be explained in anything but descriptive language. Especially if you care about people’s livelihoods and passion. I care about my artist friends, colleagues, and acquaintances. Hence I will support them in securing their endeavors in this changing landscape.

Artists are largely not computer experts and artists using AI are buying Microsoft or Adobe or using freebies and pondering paid upgrades. They are also renting rather than buying because everything’s a subscription service now.

I really don’t like this characterization of artists. They are not dumb nor incapable of learning. Technical artists exist too. Installing open source AI is relatively easy. Pretty much down to pressing a button. And because it’s open source, it’s free. Using them to it’s fullest effect is where the skill goes, and the artists I know are more than happy to develop their skills.

A far bigger market for AI is for non-artists and scammers to fill up Amazon’s bookstore and the broader Internet full of more trash than it already was.

The existence of bad usage of AI does not invalidate good usage of AI. The internet was already full of bad content before AI. The good stuff is what floats to the top. No sane person is going to pay to read some no name AI generated trash. But people will read a highly regarded book that just happened to be AI assisted.

But the whole premise is silly. Did we demonize cars because bank robbers started using them to escape the police? Did we demonize cameras because people could take exact photo copies of someone else’s work? No. We demonized those that misused the tool. AI is no different.

A scammer can generate thousands of garbage images and text without worth, before an artist being assisted by AI can make a single work. Just like a burglar can make more money easily by breaking into someone’s house and stealing all their money compared to working a day job for a month. There’s a reason these things are illegal and/or unethical. But those are reflections of the people doing this, not the things they use.

I mean, you ignored the entire rest of my comment to respond only to a hyperbole to illustrate that something is a bad argument. I’m sure they are making money off it, but small creators and artists can relatively make more money off it. And you claim that is not ‘actually happening’. But that is your opinion, how you view things. I talk with artists daily, and they use AI when it’s convenient to them, when it saves them work or allows them to focus on work they actually like. Just like how they use any other tool to their disposal.

I know there are some very big name artists on social media who are making a fuss about this stuff, but I highly question their motives with my point of view in mind. Of course it makes sense for someone with a big social media following to rally up their supporters so they can get a payday. I regularly see them speak complete lies to their followers, and of course it works. When you actually talk to artists in real life, you’ll get a far more nuanced response.

Well then we agree. Lets leave ridiculous arguments out of it. There are far better arguments to make.

I don’t disagree with that, but such differences can matter when it comes to ruling if imitation and parody are allowed, and to what extent.

The court might rule in favor of his estate for this reason. But honestly, I do think there are differences to a singer (whose voice becomes an instrument in their song) and a comedian (whose voice is used to communicate the ideas and jokes they want to tell). A different voice could tell the same jokes as Carlin, and if done with the same level of care to communicate his emotions and cadence, could effectively create the same feeling as we know it. A song could literally be a different song if you swap an instrument. But the courts will have to rule.

There’s another thing here which is that you seem to believe this was actually made in large part by an AI while simultaneously stating the motivations of humans. So which is it?

AI assisted works are, funnily enough, mostly a human production at this point. If you asked AI to make another George Carlin special for you, it would suck extremely hard. AI requires humans to succeed, it does not succeed at being human. And as such, it’s a human work at the end of the day. My opinion is that if we were being truthful, this comedy special would likely be considered AI assisted rather than fully AI generated.

You seem really sure that I think this is fully (or largely) AI generated, but that’s never been a question I answered or alluded to believing before. I don’t believe that. I don’t even believe fully AI generated works to be worthy of being called true art. AI assisted works on the other hand, I do believe to be art. AI is a tool, and for it to be used for art it requires humans to provide input and humans to make decisions for it to be something that people will actually enjoy. And that is clearly what was done here.

The primary beneficiary of all of the AI hype is Microsoft. Secondary beneficiary is Nvidia. These aren’t tiny companies.

“The primary beneficiaries of art hype are pencil makers, brush makers, canvas makers, and of course, Adobe for making photoshop, Samsung and Wacom for making drawing tablets. Not to mention the art investors selling art from museums and art galleries all over the world for millions. These aren’t tiny entities.”

See how ridiculous it is to make that argument? If something is popular, people and companies who are in a prime position to make money off it will try to do so, that is to be expected under our capitalist society. But small artists and small creators get the most elevation by the advance of open source AI. Big companies can already push out enough money to bring any work they create to the highest standards. A small creator cannot, but they can get far more, and far better results by using AI in their workflow. And because small creators often put far more heart and soul into their works, it allows them to compete with giants more easily. A clear win for small creators and artists.

Just to be extra clear: I don’t like OpenAI. I don’t like Microsoft. I don’t like Nvidia to a certain degree. Open Source AI is not their piece of cake. They like proprietary, closed source AI. The kind where only they and the people that pay them get to use the advancements AI has made. That disgusts me. Open Source AI is the tool of choice for ethical AI.

You’re right, South Park doesnt need it either. But a disclaimer removes all doubt. The video doesnt need a disclaimer either, but they made it anyways to remove all doubt. And no, they disclaimed any notion that they are George Carlin. Admitting to a crime in a disclaimer is not what it said, that much should be obvious.

A complete false equivalence. Just because improper disclaimers exist, doesn’t mean there aren’t legitimate reasons to use them. Impersonation requires intent, and a disclaimer is an explicit way to make it clear that they are not attempting to do that, and to explicitly make it clear to viewers who might have misunderstood. It’s why South Park has such a text too at the start of every episode. It’s a rather fool proof way to illegitimize any accusation of impersonation.