Apparently, stealing other peopleās work to create product for money is now āfair useā as according to OpenAI because they are āinnovatingā (stealing). Yeah. Move fast and break things, huh?
āBecause copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expressionāincluding blogposts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documentsāit would be impossible to train todayās leading AI models without using copyrighted materials,ā wrote OpenAI in the House of Lords submission.
OpenAI claimed that the authors in that lawsuit āmisconceive[d] the scope of copyright, failing to take into account the limitations and exceptions (including fair use) that properly leave room for innovations like the large language models now at the forefront of artificial intelligence.ā
you know how the neurons in our brain work, right?
because if not, well, itās pretty similarā¦ unless you say thereās a soul (in which case we canāt really have a conversation based on fact alone), weāre just big olā probability machines with tuned weights based on past experiences too
You are spitting out basic points and attempting to draw similarities because our brains are capable of something similar. The difference between what youāve said and what LLMs do is that we have experiences that we are able to glean a variety of information from. An LLM sees text and all itās designed to do is say āx is more likely to appear before y than zā. If you fed it nonsense, it would regurgitate nonsense. If you feed it text from racist sites, it will regurgitate that same language because thatās all it has seen.
Youāll read this and think āthatās what humans do too, right?ā Wrong. A human can be fed these things and still reject them. Someone else in this thread has made some good points regarding this but Iāll state them here as well. An LLM will tell you information but it has no cognition on what itās telling you. It has no idea that itās right or wrong, itās job is to convince you that itās right because thatās the success state. If you tell it itās wrong, thatās a failure state. The more you speak with it, the more fail states it accumulates and the more likely it is to cutoff communication because itās not reaching a success, itās not giving you what you want. The longer the conversation goes on, the more crazy LLMs get as well because itās too much to process at once, holding those contexts in its memory while trying to predict the next one. Our brains do this easily and so much more. To claim an LLM is intelligent is incredibly misguided, it is merely the imitation of intelligence.
but thatās just a matter of complexity, not fundamental difference. the way our brains work and the way an artificial neural network work arenāt that different; just that our brains are beyond many orders of magnitude bigger
thereās no particular reason why we canāt feed artificial neural networks an enormous amount of ā¦ letās say tangentially related experiential information ā¦ as well, but in order to be efficient and make them specialise in the things we want, we only feed them information thatās directly related to the specialty we want them to perform
thereās someā¦ āpre trainingā or āpre-existing stateā that exists with humans too that comes from genetics, but iād argue thatās as relevant to the actual task of learning, comprehension, and creating as a BIOS is to running an operating system (that is, a necessary precondition to ensure the correct functioning of our body with our brain, but not actually what youād call the main function)
iām also not claiming that an LLM is intelligent (or rather iād prefer to use the term self aware because intelligent is pretty nebulous); just that the structure it has isnāt that much different to our brains just on a level thatās so much smaller and so much more generic that you canāt expect it to perform as well as a human - you wouldnāt expect to cut out 99% of a humans brain and have them be able to continue to function at the same level either
i guess the core of what iām getting at is that the self awareness that humans have is definitely not present in an LLM, however i donāt think that self-awareness is necessarily a pre-requisite for most things that we call creativity. i think thatās itās entirely possible for an artificial neural net thatās fundamentally the same technology that we use today to be able to ingest the same data that a human would from birth, and to have very similar outcomesā¦ given that belief (and iām very aware that it certainly is just a belief - we arenāt close to understanding our brains, but i donāt fundamentally thing thereās anything other then neurons firing that results in the human condition), just because you simplify and specialise the input data doesnāt mean that the process is different. you could argue that itās lesser, for sure, but to rule out that it can create a legitimately new work is definitely premature
āSoulā is the word we use for something we donāt scientifically understand yet. Unless you did discover how human brains work, in that case I congratulate you on your Nobel prize.
You can abstract a complex concept so much it becomes wrong. And abstracting how the brain works to āitās a probability machineā definitely is a wrong description. Especially when you want to use it as an argument of similarity to other probability machines.
thatās far from definitive. another definition is
but since we arenāt arguing semantics, it doesnāt really matter exactly, other than the fact that itās important to remember that just because you have an experience, belief, or view doesnāt make it the only truth
of course i didnāt discover categorically how the human brain works in its entirety, however most scientists iām sure would agree that the method by which the brain performs its functions is by neurons firing. if you disagree with that statement, the burden of proof is on you. the part we donāt understand is how it all connects up - the emergent behaviour. we understand the basics; thatās not in question, and you seem to be questioning it
itās not abstracted; itās simplifiedā¦ if what youāre saying were true, then simplifying complex organisms down to a petri dish for research would be āabstractedā so much it ābecomes wrongā, which is categorically untrueā¦ itās an incomplete picture, but that doesnāt make it either wrong or abstract
*edit: sorry, it was another comment where i specifically said belief; the comment you replied to didnāt state that, however most of this still applies regardless
i laid out an a leads to b leads to c and stated that itās simply a belief, however itās a belief thatās based in logic and simplified concepts. if you want to disagree thatās fine but donāt act like you have some āevidenceā or āproofā to back up your claimsā¦ all weāre talking about here is belief, because we simply donāt know - neither you nor i
and given that all of this is based on belief rather than proof, the only thing that matters is what we as individuals believe about the input and output data (because the bit in the middle has no definitive proof either way)
if a human consumes media and writes something and it looks different, thatās not a violation
if a machine consumes media and writes something and it looks different, youāre arguing that is a violation
the only difference here is your belief that a human brain somehow has something āmoreā than a probabilistic model going onā¦ but again, thatās far from certain