Images generated by AI models trained on massive datasets often can’t be traced to specific training images, MIT CSAIL researchers found. Removing individual images from the dataset didn’t change outputs, complicating copyright questions.
I mean, most people can’t recognize slop vs creativity normally. I think the results affect less the anthropomorphizing issue, since oir brains do run similar predictive processes in how we generate words based on context,
Although it can’t actively update its weights while navigating novel concepts, which is why you need a person to create novelty alongside the tool, or correct its mistakes, much like when you say the wrong thing and backtrack and correct. Your word generating process isn’t perfect, but it’s a useful tool that is useful alongside all of your other ‘tools.’
What i think the study is a better answer to is the people who call it a theft machine because it learned from things that exist.
That being said, rich assholes should not be able to turn around and claim ownership of the result of the learning based on the collective development and accomplishment of mankind, or life more broadly. We ‘steal’. A lot of useful intelligent tools from nature.
It’s hard to start that conversation though when the ‘bad’ thing they are doing is just learning or training.
We had the slop of 90s-2000s Disney sequels, even if it was a bunch of human interns having their time and energy pilfered with the threat of basic survival or right to spend time creating art instead of flipping burgers. All proper and copyright safe, but closer to the actual problem than some artists trying to actually create novel things with these models replacing the Disney interns that only Disney has ‘rightful’ access to, despite gaining success off of public domain, and then lobbying to shrink the public domain.
But people are more eager to be mad at the technology than the complexity of dealing with the opportunistic assholes that will use every tool, technology or otherwise, to ensure they get to have power over our collective rights and autonomy.
I mean, most people can’t recognize slop vs creativity normally. I think the results affect less the anthropomorphizing issue, since oir brains do run similar predictive processes in how we generate words based on context,
Although it can’t actively update its weights while navigating novel concepts, which is why you need a person to create novelty alongside the tool, or correct its mistakes, much like when you say the wrong thing and backtrack and correct. Your word generating process isn’t perfect, but it’s a useful tool that is useful alongside all of your other ‘tools.’
What i think the study is a better answer to is the people who call it a theft machine because it learned from things that exist.
That being said, rich assholes should not be able to turn around and claim ownership of the result of the learning based on the collective development and accomplishment of mankind, or life more broadly. We ‘steal’. A lot of useful intelligent tools from nature.
It’s hard to start that conversation though when the ‘bad’ thing they are doing is just learning or training.
We had the slop of 90s-2000s Disney sequels, even if it was a bunch of human interns having their time and energy pilfered with the threat of basic survival or right to spend time creating art instead of flipping burgers. All proper and copyright safe, but closer to the actual problem than some artists trying to actually create novel things with these models replacing the Disney interns that only Disney has ‘rightful’ access to, despite gaining success off of public domain, and then lobbying to shrink the public domain.
But people are more eager to be mad at the technology than the complexity of dealing with the opportunistic assholes that will use every tool, technology or otherwise, to ensure they get to have power over our collective rights and autonomy.