this is so fucking stupid though. almost everyone reads books and/or watches movies, and their speech is developed from that. the way we speak is modeled after characters and dialogue in books. the way we think is often from books. do we track down what percentage of each sentence comes from what book every time we think or talk?
- 0 Followers
- 0 Following
- 7 Posts
the government in its current form would have that flaw in the content distribution system, yes, but his main idea is that it would be like open-source ran in the sense of “government of the people”
if I read a book no one sues my brain for consumption
yes, this is the fundamental point
this brings up the question: what is a book? what is art? if an “AI” can now churn out the next harry potter sequel and people literally can’t tell that it’s not written by JK Rowling, then what does that mean for what people value in stories? what is a story? is this a sign that we humans should figure something new out, instead of reacting according to an outdated protocol?
yes, authors made money in the past before AI. now that we have AI and most people can get satisfied by a book written by AI, what will differentiate human authors from AI? will it become a niche thing, where some people can tell the difference and they prefer human authors? or will there be some small number of exceptional authors who can produce something that is obviously different from AI?
i see this as an opportunity for artists to compete with AI, rather than say “hey! no fair! he can think and write faster than me!”
yes, but that’s a different situation. with the LLM, the issue is that the text from copyrighted books are influencing the way it speaks. this is the same with humans.
are we no longer allowed to borrow books from friends?
Ending Copyright Could Save Art & Journalism
The soapbox I've been on for 15 years, now summarized in 17 minutes with clipart. Probably the most important video I'll ever make. ⚠️ Rough/incomplete math ...
again, this why i claim that lemmy is not the solution to the problem we are trying to solve.
very interesting point
this is what i’m frustrated with. why do all these engineers let themselves be told what to do even if it makes a worse-functioning tool? that’s not real engineering.
“because they’ll get fired”
not if enough of them do thing that should’ve been what got them interested in engineering in the first place.
maybe we shouldn’t call them engineers, but something else relating to being the one who does the dirty work for institutions that aim to steal people’s attention and decrease their quality of life.
and if they do get fired, then they should join together and make the reasonable company that makes good tools for human use.