It can be trained on the exact same free data that we can be trained on. Just like us, it doesn’t have to bypass paywalls. I think they’re arguing that if I can look at the Wikipedia and tell you that an avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers, then AI should be allowed to as well.
I think you need to read up on the difference between “free as in beer” and “free” licenses. Everything on Wikipedia is copyrighted under a GNU license, which requires any use to give credit AND ALSO be licensed under the GPL. Which AI models do not (and cannot) do.
Also, just conceptually… We built a giant, free library (and museum and art gallery and etc.) on the internet, and these parasitic AI companies came in and built a fence around it and started charging admission while massively polluting our cities and towns and gobbling up resources at an incredible rate. Then, even if you pay them their admission fees, the information you get is at best 70% correct. Why would anyone celebrate that?
I think they’re arguing that if I can look at the Wikipedia and tell you that an avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers, then AI should be allowed to as well.
This is misleading and dishonest. Its not just looking up a single free information. Ai does more than that. Ai will not only scrape and copy the entire article, it will also scrape and copy the entirety of Wikipedia. There are licenses attacked to the Wikipedia article we have to follow to, if we scrape and use it for other purposes. It will also scrape the entire web. That is not the same as just looking up an Avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers.
This is weirdly accusatory. I’m not sitting here in a black cape and stovepipe top hat, twirling my mustache.
Its not just looking up a single free information. Ai does more than that. Ai will not only scrape and copy the entire article, it will also scrape and copy the entirety of Wikipedia. There are licenses attacked to the Wikipedia article we have to follow to, if we scrape and use it for other purposes. It will also scrape the entire web. That is not the same as just looking up an Avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers.
If this is the way we’re going to look at it then I guess we have to throw this technology out the window. It seems like a bad idea to do that though.
BTW so you agree with me then, because the only solution you see here to throw it away. Because what I described is not hallucinated by me, this is how its operate. It was to correct you for your wrong example with looking up a single information from Wikipedia.
we have to throw this technology out the window. It seems like a bad idea to do that though.
Why? Besides that’s not possible in the near future, it could be made illegal and then suddenly the biggest companies (the driver behind it) would have to stop. This wouldn’t eliminate all Ai tools everywhere, so getting rid of it is probably not possible anymore.
But that wasn’t my suggestion either. And we don’t have to throw it away, we have to comply. It needs to change.
Using AI isn’t bad. The problems that people have with it has nothing to do with the technology itself.
We literally discussed about the problems of Ai the whole time… LLMs have conceptional problems, regardless who uses it. It is the technology that is the problem first, second problem are the companies abusing it even more and then the careless or greedy users too. Its threefold. Saying it has nothing to do with the technology itself is therefore wrong.
LLMs have conceptional problems, regardless who uses it. It is the technology that is the problem first
I disagree with this.
And we don’t have to throw it away, we have to comply. It needs to change.
I agree with this.
The problem with everyone’s panic over AI is that they can’t think straight. It’s like if I say that hammers are fantastic but everyone says that they are horrible because they have conceptual problems, murderous users are hitting people in the head with them, the companies are stealing wood and cutting down the rain forest to make them, etc.; meanwhile a YouTuber is caught using one and he’s apologizing and saying he has a problem and his wife and family are chewing him out for using a hammer. It’s sheer madness.
There’s nothing wrong with using a hammer. If the companies are using enslaved ewoks provided by Lord Vader to make them, that has nothing to do with the technology itself.
It’s like if I say that hammers are fantastic but everyone says that they are horrible because they have conceptual problems, murderous users are hitting people in the head with them, the companies are stealing wood and cutting down the rain forest to make them
Again wrong analogy just to disagree. That is not the conceptional problem with LLMs I talked about. It is a matter of fact that the LLMs are trained on data without respecting their license such as GPL, even worse when generating content. These are factual problems with the concept of LLMs. This is not like a hammer that was designed for a specific purpose, that is then misused as something else. That is not the issue whatsoever here. The design and philosophy of LLMs is deeply flawed in many ways.
The hammer analogy shows either you try to change the topic, or you don’t understand the issues I’m talking about. That is completely false analogy to the issues I brought up. Same with a knife or even a game controller. Just because you can misuse it, does not mean its wrongly designed. The user didn’t use it properly. That is NOT what I was talking about.
It can be trained on the exact same free data that we can be trained on. Just like us, it doesn’t have to bypass paywalls. I think they’re arguing that if I can look at the Wikipedia and tell you that an avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers, then AI should be allowed to as well.
I think you need to read up on the difference between “free as in beer” and “free” licenses. Everything on Wikipedia is copyrighted under a GNU license, which requires any use to give credit AND ALSO be licensed under the GPL. Which AI models do not (and cannot) do.
Also, just conceptually… We built a giant, free library (and museum and art gallery and etc.) on the internet, and these parasitic AI companies came in and built a fence around it and started charging admission while massively polluting our cities and towns and gobbling up resources at an incredible rate. Then, even if you pay them their admission fees, the information you get is at best 70% correct. Why would anyone celebrate that?
This is misleading and dishonest. Its not just looking up a single free information. Ai does more than that. Ai will not only scrape and copy the entire article, it will also scrape and copy the entirety of Wikipedia. There are licenses attacked to the Wikipedia article we have to follow to, if we scrape and use it for other purposes. It will also scrape the entire web. That is not the same as just looking up an Avalanche in Pakistan killed ten climbers.
This is weirdly accusatory. I’m not sitting here in a black cape and stovepipe top hat, twirling my mustache.
If this is the way we’re going to look at it then I guess we have to throw this technology out the window. It seems like a bad idea to do that though.
BTW so you agree with me then, because the only solution you see here to throw it away. Because what I described is not hallucinated by me, this is how its operate. It was to correct you for your wrong example with looking up a single information from Wikipedia.
Why? Besides that’s not possible in the near future, it could be made illegal and then suddenly the biggest companies (the driver behind it) would have to stop. This wouldn’t eliminate all Ai tools everywhere, so getting rid of it is probably not possible anymore.
But that wasn’t my suggestion either. And we don’t have to throw it away, we have to comply. It needs to change.
And this was my point from the very beginning. Using AI isn’t bad. The problems that people have with it has nothing to do with the technology itself.
We literally discussed about the problems of Ai the whole time… LLMs have conceptional problems, regardless who uses it. It is the technology that is the problem first, second problem are the companies abusing it even more and then the careless or greedy users too. Its threefold. Saying it has nothing to do with the technology itself is therefore wrong.
I disagree with this.
I agree with this.
The problem with everyone’s panic over AI is that they can’t think straight. It’s like if I say that hammers are fantastic but everyone says that they are horrible because they have conceptual problems, murderous users are hitting people in the head with them, the companies are stealing wood and cutting down the rain forest to make them, etc.; meanwhile a YouTuber is caught using one and he’s apologizing and saying he has a problem and his wife and family are chewing him out for using a hammer. It’s sheer madness.
There’s nothing wrong with using a hammer. If the companies are using enslaved ewoks provided by Lord Vader to make them, that has nothing to do with the technology itself.
Again wrong analogy just to disagree. That is not the conceptional problem with LLMs I talked about. It is a matter of fact that the LLMs are trained on data without respecting their license such as GPL, even worse when generating content. These are factual problems with the concept of LLMs. This is not like a hammer that was designed for a specific purpose, that is then misused as something else. That is not the issue whatsoever here. The design and philosophy of LLMs is deeply flawed in many ways.
The hammer analogy shows either you try to change the topic, or you don’t understand the issues I’m talking about. That is completely false analogy to the issues I brought up. Same with a knife or even a game controller. Just because you can misuse it, does not mean its wrongly designed. The user didn’t use it properly. That is NOT what I was talking about.
You’re going in circles, talking out of both sides of your mouth.