All it would take for AI to completely collapse is a ruling in the US saying these companies have to licence the content they used to train these tools.
They simply would never reach a sustainable business model if they had to fairly compensate all the people who wrote, drew, edited, sang or just created the content they use.
Simply being forced to respect attribution and licenses would kill them. Will that ruling ever happen? Maybe not. Should it? I think so.
@thelinuxEXP To play the devil's advocate a bit here, but people also learn in a similar way. You have to read to learn how to write. You have to listen to music to learn how to make your own, etc.
I think there are at least 2 main differences. The first one is that a human can only produce so much work on their own, while AI can mass produce.
@mayadev @thelinuxEXP I think this is a bit narrow view. Memorization is certainly part of learning even for humans. AI is doing more than just that though. If that was all it needed to do, just saving the data would be enough and computers can do that in 1 go.
For example there's this task: develop a program that can recognize hand-written digits. It's practically impossible to write a good one in the old-fashioned way with rules and stuff. With ML it's trivial. It's the "hello world" of AI.
@mayadev @thelinuxEXP The learning is similar not the same. Both:
- need positive and negative examples
- need external or internal feedback
- extract patterns so they can apply the knowledge to new situations.
The main differences for me are:
- AI needs many more examples
- teaching AI is expensive. to make it acceptable AI is trained "in the lab". The trained models are then used, but they don't learn new stuff while they are used.
I'm sure experts are working on both.
Nick @ The Linux Experiment
ivt
maya