Brian Eno: “The biggest problem about AI is not intrinsic to AI. It’s to do with the fact that it’s owned by the same few people”
-
Oh you're right, let me just tally up all the days where that isn't the case...
carry the 2...
don't forget weekends and holidays...
Oh! It's every single day. It's just an always and forever problem. Neat.
It's nothing of the sort. If nobody had the capital to scale it through more power, then the research would be more focused on making it efficient.
-
Dunno, the part about generative music (not like LLMs) I've tried, I think if I spent a few more years of weekly migraines on that, I'd become better.
you mean like in the same way that learning an instrument takes time and dedication?
-
AI business is owned by a tiny group of technobros, who have no concern for what they have to do to get the results they want ("fuck the copyright, especially fuck the natural resources") who want to be personally seen as the saviours of humanity (despite not being the ones who invented and implemented the actual tech) and, like all big wig biz boys, they want all the money.
I don't have problems with AI tech in the principle, but I hate the current business direction and what the AI business encourages people to do and use the tech for.
Well I'm on board for fuck intellectual property. If openai doesn't publish the weights then all their datacenter get visited by the killdozer
-
100%. People treat AI like some all knowing god figure. It can and will be manipulated just like every other social media site or search engine.
That's why we need the weights, right now! Before they figure out how to do this. It will happen, but at least we can prevent backsliding from what we have now.
-
...in the same way that someone who's read a lot of books can make money by writing their own.
I hate to be the one to break it to you but AIs aren't actually people. Companies claiming that they are "this close to AGI" doesn't make it true.
The human brain is an exception to copyright law. Outsourcing your thinking to a machine that doesn't actually think makes this something different and therefore should be treated differently.
-
No, but humans have differences in scale also. Should a person gifted with hyper-fast reading and writing ability be given less opportunity than a writer who takes a year to read a book and a decade to write one? Imo if the argument comes down to scale, it's kind of a shitty argument. Is the underlying principle faulty or not?
Part of my point is that a lot of everyday rules do break down at large scale. Like, 'drink water' is good advice - but a person can still die from drinking too much water. And having a few people go for a walk through a forest is nice, but having a million people go for a walk through a forest is bad. And using a couple of quotes from different sources to write an article for a website is good; but using thousands of quotes in an automated method doesn't really feel like the same thing any more.
That's what I'm saying. A person can't physically read billions of books, or do the statistical work to put them together to create a new piece of work from them. And since a person cannot do that, no law or existing rule currently takes that possibility into account. So I don't think we can really say that a person is 'allowed to' do that. Rather, it's just an undefined area. A person simply cannot physically do it, and so the rules don't have to consider it. On the other hand, computer systems can now do it. And so rather than pointing to old laws, we have to decide as a society whether we think that's something we are ok with.
I don't know what the 'best' answer is, but I do think we should at least stop to think about it carefully; because there are some clear downsides that need to be considered - and probably a lot of effects that aren't as obvious which should also be considered!
-
This post did not contain any content.
Reminds me of "biotech is Godzilla". Sepultura version of course
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
.
-
The delusional maniacs are going to be surprised when they ask the Super AI "how do we solve global warming?" and the answer is "build lots of solar, wind, and storage, and change infrastructure in cities to support walking, biking, and public transportation".
Which is the answer they will get right before sending the AI back for "repairs."
As we saw with Grock already several times.
They absolutely adore AI, it makes them feel in-touch with the world and able to feel validated, since all it is is a validation machine. They don't care if it's right or accurate or even remotely neutral, they want a biased fantasy crafting system that paints terrible pictures of Donald Trump all ripped and oiled riding on a tank and they want the AI to say "Look what you made! What a good boy! You did SO good!"
-
In a Venn Diagram, I think your “illegally harvesting” complaint is a circle fully inside the “owned by the same few people” statement. AI could have been an open, community-driven endeavor, but now it’s just mega-rich corporations stealing from everyone else. I guess that’s true of literally everything, not just AI, but you get my point.
-
In this case they just need to publish the code as a torrent. You wouldn't setup a crawler if there was all the data in a torrent swarm.
I've heard stuff like bittorent doesn't work well when the data is often updated or changed
I might be totally wrong, I've only ever used it once when downloading Wikipedia
-
Also the energy for those datacenters has to come from somewhere and non-renewable options (gas, oil, nuclear generation) also use a lot of water as part of the generation process itself and for cooling.
nuclear isn't that bad ngl
France uses a ton of itand the wastewater that nuclear power plants make, its barely radioactive at all
-
System shared this topic on
