This is an issue for the AI user though. And I do agree that needs to be more conscious in people’s minds. But I think time will change that. Perhaps when the photo camera came out there were some shmucks that took pictures of people’s artworks and claimed it as their own because the novelty of the technology allowed that for a bit, but eventually those people are properly differentiated from people properly using it.
Like if I download a textbook to read for a class instead of buying it - I could be proscecuted for stealing
Ehh, no almost certainly not (But it does depend on your local laws). But that honestly just sounds like some corporate boogyman to prevent you from pirating their books. The person hosting the download, if they did not have the rights to publicize it freely, would possibly be prosecuted though.
To illustrate, there’s this story of John Cena who sold a special Ford after signing a contract with Ford to explicitly forbid him from doing that. However, the person who bought the car was never prosecuted or sued, because they received the car from Cena with no strings attached. They couldn’t be held responsible for Cena’s break of contract, but Cena was held personally responsible by Ford.
For physical goods there is ‘theft by proxy’ though (receiving stolen goods that you know are most likely stolen), but that quite certainly doesn’t apply to digital, copyable goods. As to even access any kind of information on the internet, you have to download and thus, copy it.
That would be true if they used material that was paywalled. But the vast majority of the training information used is publicly available. There’s plenty of freely available books and information that you only require an internet connection for to access, and learn from.
Your first point is misguided and incorrect. If you’ve ever learned something by ‘cramming’, a.k.a. just repeating ingesting material until you remember it completely. You don’t need the book in front of you anymore to write the material down verbatim in a test. You still discarded your training material despite you knowing the exact contents. If this was all the AI could do it would indeed be an infringement machine. But you said it yourself, you need to trick the AI to do this. It’s not made to do this, but certain sentences are indeed almost certain to show up with the right conditioning. Which is indeed something anyone using an AI should be aware of, and avoid that kind of conditioning. (Which in practice often just means, don’t ask the AI to make something infringing)
This would be a good point, if this is what the explicit purpose of the AI was. Which it isn’t. It can quote certain information verbatim despite not containing that data verbatim, through the process of learning, for the same reason we can.
I can ask you to quote famous lines from books all day as well. That doesn’t mean that you knowing those lines means you infringed on copyright. Now, if you were to put those to paper and sell them, you might get a cease and desist or a lawsuit. Therein lies the difference. Your goal would be explicitly to infringe on the specific expression of those words. Any human that would explicitly try to get an AI to produce infringing material… would be infringing. And unknowing infringement… well there are countless court cases where both sides think they did nothing wrong.
You don’t even need AI for that, if you followed the Infinite Monkey Theorem and just happened to stumble upon a work falling under copyright, you still could not sell it even if it was produced by a purely random process.
Another great example is the Mona Lisa. Most people know what it looks like and if they had sufficient talent could mimic it 1:1. However, there are numerous adaptations of the Mona Lisa that are not infringing (by today’s standards), because they transform the work to the point where it’s no longer the original expression, but a re-expression of the same idea. Anything less than that is pretty much completely safe infringement wise.
You’re right though that OpenAI tries to cover their ass by implementing safeguards. Which is to be expected because it’s a legal argument in court that once they became aware of situations they have to take steps to limit harm. They can indeed not prevent it completely, but it’s the effort that counts. Practically none of that kind of moderation is 100% effective. Otherwise we’d live in a pretty good world.
Honestly, that’s why open source AI is such a good thing for small creatives. Hate it or love it, anyone wielding AI with the intention to make new expression will be much more safe and efficient to succeed until they can grow big enough to hire a team with specialists. People often look at those at the top but ignore the things that can grow from the bottom and actually create more creative expression.
I am kind of afraid that if voting becomes more public than it already is, it will lead exactly to more of the kind of “zero-content downvote” accounts mentioned in the ticket. Because some people are just wildly irrational when it comes to touchy subjects, and aint nobody got time to spend an eternity with them dismantling their beliefs so they understand the nuance you see that they don’t (If they even let you). So it kind of incentivizes people to create an account like that to ensure a crazy person doesn’t latch on to the account you’re trying to have normal discussions with.
But I understand that they can technically already do this if they wanted to. So perhaps it will be fine as long as we fight against vote viewing being weaponized as a community.
Alright, don’t say I didn’t try. Good luck trying to convince people on a message that far more people disagree with than agree. And on a point that’s at the end of the day irrelevant to actually reducing genocide, even if you do convince them Joe Biden is somehow personally responsible.
You don’t know me, nor what I have done to try and change things, yet you think because I don’t want to accept your inaccurate beliefs that I’m somehow supporting genocide with that. Good luck trying to make anything but enemies with that mentality. I don’t even work for the US or pay taxes there, and I proudly support efforts in my country to stop funding Israel. My hands are clean when it comes to the money US puts into Israel, yet even I can see what you’re trying to peddle is incorrect.
By your own logic, you are doing genocide yourself. Because you are not personally flying the planes, but you are funding Joe Biden through your tax dollars, who funds Israel, who pays the pilots that fly the planes. You are also supporting the Uyghur genocide because you can’t get around buying Chinese made products that fund the CCP either. You are also most likely supporting child labor because you basically can’t get around products produced by child labour in Africa and South East Asia.
If you’re going to take that stance, pretty much everyone is a fucking horrible person. Which is why it’s stupid, because clearly people struggle with these things. You can fight against those things while still being forced to participate in them. Joe Biden definitely has more say in the matter than the average person, but he too is held back by factors which he can’t get around, which we talked about in grand detail. Who doesn’t have those constraints? Israel. The people who have the final say over the money and decide to commit war crimes with them instead of what the money is intended for. Is Joe Biden complicit in his weak response to Israel? Yes. But it doesn’t make him personally responsible because he’s just a figurehead that has certain responsibilities to his base and his country, which he too can’t get around. And Kamala will also inherit that if she takes office.
Only one of the two parties can win, c’mon, you know they have the whole thing rigged right?
It was you who claimed 50% of the votes were untapped. Now you’re saying it’s rigged anyways. It almost sounds like you don’t have any hope to change things, which you are readily accusing others of. Could it be that you are starting to recognize that there are barriers in place to get people to stop supporting genocide?
Okay. Here is my message.
- Biden is doing genocide.
- supporting Biden = supporting genocide
- We can force this genocide to stop, and that starts with raising our voices against it. It isn’t hopeless.
As long as you keep including #1 (and to a certain extent #2) and militantly defend that position rather than understand the other person’s point of view, you will not change their mind. Even if there is a large majority perfectly willing to agree and fight for #3, and people that are undecided who could be convinced of #3, but not #1 and #2. As such, you are weakening the position to actually change #3. Even doing nothing would be better.
And yes, by that logic, that makes you a force for genocide, even if your actual opinion is anti-genocide. Actions speak louder than words, and your actions make people more likely to side with genocide because you’re making them irrationally resistant to your ideas, because you package the reasonable stance of stopping genocide with the unreasonable stance of assigning full responsibility to a not necessarily innocent, but still indirectly involved person.
As I said, my goal was to help you relax your stance so you can be a force against genocide, because I actually want to stop genocide, and so having more people effectively stop the genocide is what I want. But I have seemingly failed with you. Now every person you get to who is undecided, someone else will have to undo in their mind that they don’t mean your position, but a reasonable one. You have made it harder to convince them to drop their support for genocide, and even harder to get them to stand up against it. This will be my last response, and I hope you reflect on our conversation. We want the same thing, at the end of the day.
I was here since the start before any such messages appeared, so you’re not fooling me. You started out with “He’s still doing genocide y’all”. An inaccurate and laden statement which you rightfully got a critical responses for, not because people support the policy. You followed this up by calling your critics pro-genocide, regardless of their actual position. I’m sorry, but you don’t exist out of context either, so yeah, people are kind of not going to like you in this thread. It’s why you don’t attack people out of the gate, I warned you about that in my very first message. Hostility often creates more hostility. I don’t necessarily condone that, but you have thrown a little too much dirt to be surprised about being dirty.
We haven’t even discussed whether or not I think we can do anything about it, yet you call me deeply cynical for a position I don’t hold. I do think more people in the US should be against the support for Israel. I do think the support makes Israel emboldened to commit genocide. I do think people can be convinced. But as I was trying to explain to you, I understand that other people look at different aspects and have different experiences to where they can be unaware of Israels atrocities, or are indeed willing to look away. And often those people are sadly needed for a majority that has chances of actually stopping the genocide. So they must be convinced to get the end result I desire, no more genocide.
It should be obvious that anyone you ask if genocide is okay, they will say no. But people can have irrational and conflicting beliefs, and to actually make them change their mind the worst you can do is to effectively say “you are a terrible person”, even if it’s effectively true. Because if they’ve rationalized themselves to accept supporting Israel, being called a terrible person only emboldens that rationalization. There exists no magic incantation that will change this. (And it should be said, calling the people who very well might share your opinion on all but your questionable remarks, makes you look really bad)
If you think you can get 50% of the votes in the US, I really urge you to start a party right now. Because by that logic both Democrats and Republicans could only hold 25% of the vote, so you could win in a landslide victory with the remaining 50%. But I think we both know that will not happen. But according to the data, ~66% voted in the last election. 34% is still enough for a victory, but that’s a tall order.
I want you to understand that I’m talking to you because I want you to be effective at getting your message across. Having commendable opinions but being terribly self destructive in ways of expressing them is so incredibly wasteful and will at worst create more support for the thing you are rallying against. Clearly you have the vigor to stand up for what your opinion is, but actually changing things means taking on constructive, calm and respectful dialogue, and doing what’s effective over what perhaps more morally clean in the short term, but because you didn’t actually change anything, morally dubious in the long term.
I don’t think people connect her with Biden’s genocide. Yes, she is complicit because there are things she could be doing to remove Biden from office, but most people don’t see the Vice President as actually all that important in deciding policy. I do not think attacking Biden on this issue hurts her at all, and that’s why she’s going to win. Attacking Biden is, in fact, a good way to pressure Harris without hurting her chances at winning. He’s a fair target and it should be open season on his evil ancient ass.
Sure, I can see the logic in that. I do think it will affect her and people are kind of expecting her to have the same stance as Biden even if he changes it. Unless she comes out to denounce it, which I highly doubt she will. But we can disagree on that and criticizing Biden for that is totally fine.
Whenever they’ve retaliated in the past it’s always been very conservative and measured because they don’t want a regional war either. They understand that a regional war wouldn’t save Palestinian lives and would be extremely costly for everyone in the region, they’re not the problem here. Israel is the only actor trying to start more wars at this moment and you need to recognize that, rather than scaring yourself with Iranian boogeymen. Israel is the problem and Israel must be stopped, or war is inevitable.
I mean, we’re having this conversation because you insisted Joe Biden was the issue. It has always been my stance that Israel is the problem, and kind of abusing the good will of the populations that supported them. So I’m glad to hear you seem to agree on that. But I do think you are giving Iran too much credit, they are not a boogeyman, which would imply they are actually harmless. They are a legitimately evil autocracy that does not care for people more than Israel does. Iran will definitely take the chance if the US would drop support for Israel. It is because of Israels support in large part from the US that they have not made rash moves, because they too have to balance their pushback on Israel and invoking a response from the US and allies.
There’s still several months until the election. It can, and will, continue to get worse. I don’t think we should find out where the breaking point is.
I don’t think you should either. But I’m not so sure it’s set in stone if it will. We’re living in turbulent times.
The uncommitted movement is a powerful force in swing states and donors know this - Biden being old is only part of the reason he was forced to drop out.
Swing voters are pretty much by definition leaning more towards the Republicans than non-swing Democrats. And we just sort of agreed that Republicans are more in favor of supporting Israel. So I don’t think it’s very unreasonable to say these swing voters are more likely to support Israel than Democrats. More evidence of that is the fact I don’t think Kamala has spoken prominently once of Gaza since she became the presumptive and eventual candidate. Which she definitely would highlight if that would make her more favorable with swing voters. But there are seemingly more important issues that she’s addressing first, if she will even discuss Israel at all.
It’s like I said, I think Harris is going to be just fine. Dems believe, probably correctly, that Biden is a lightning rod that will distract voters away from Harris’s record on Israel and allow them to win this November. If they’re right, we can voice opposition to Biden’s racist genocidal policies without helping Trump win. We can’t afford to be silent. So now that he’s out of the race there’s literally no reason to hold back. At this point support for Biden is 100% just support for genocide.
I agree. Biden can be a lightning rod for criticism instead of Kamala. But again, I don’t think anyone is really supporting Joe Biden that way anymore. I certainly haven’t seen such sentiment from the people you accused of being pro genocide. Support is very different from rejecting what they perceive to be inaccuracies or mischaracterizations. And the two shouldn’t be confused, nor easily determined if you’re going to assign the label ‘pro genocide’ to them afterwards. If you want to actually change things, attacking people will not make people with opposing views change their mind, and reasonable allies will abandon you. Even if you are right, you still need to convince people who think you are wrong. And assuming they must hold that position because they are pro genocide is just massively slashing your own tires.
This conversation is not about Kamala, we are talking about Biden remember?
If you cannot see that Kamala’s campaign is still inherently tied to Joe Biden’s campaign and his current presidency, I don’t know what to tell you. He is still the president, and she is his vice president, and his policies inform people about hers.
Excuse me? It’s fucking Israel that is trying to start all out war with the shit they keep doing, Iran’s responses have only been reserved and reasonable by comparison
Are you forgetting that Iran is a militant Sharia state that clearly has more than a few human right violations under their belt? They are not the good guys either. You’re right, Israel is trying to provoke shit, and they rightfully should be punished for doing so. But that’s sadly irrelevant, If the US drops Israel, this will cause a massive power vacuum on Israels part, and it’s very likely that we will go from a war not between Israel and the Palestinians, but war to a war in all of the middle east. A magnitude larger in human suffering. If you want to stop genocide, that doesn’t sound like the thing you want.
With who? Germany, I guess? I doubt it. Europe is the US’s playground, whatever the US wants they’ll either support it or quietly stand aside.
Ehh, I’m not even sure where you get this from. The EU will not just blindly support what the US wants, but we are very aligned diplomatically. In the EU there is sadly a similar struggle for different reasons.
But it does make your position a little bit more understandable if you truly think the US is somehow the leader of everyone else they are good diplomatic partners with. Fortunately, that is not the case.
To answer the question, no, I was referring in part to Taiwan and Ukraine, but also allies with whom a larger majority supports Isreal, or those that have agreements with the US that hang on their stance.
But, also? Support for this genocide is already hurting diplomatic relationships. Turkey and Egypt in particular are under a lot of domestic pressure from this war, when Israel starts a regional conflict it’s only going to burn more of those bridges. There are limits to how far we can support Israel before other Middle East allies turn against the US.
Yes. And yet, that’s not enough of a reason. Taking either position has negatives. And yes, there are limits to the support the US can take, but clearly and unfortunately where they’re currently at, they haven’t crossed that line.
Yes, this is entirely true. We support Israel as our unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East, we need it to control that route for trade and migration and oil resources. I doubt realpolitik is a big factor on voter’s minds, though. The most ardent supporters of Israel are going to vote for Trump anyway. Appealing to them is bad politics.
And here is your fatal flaw. If this was actually the case, it would be unfathomable for a Democrat to hold this position, yet it’s not. It’s an uncomfortable truth, I’m sure. But not everyone has the same experiences as you do. Nor as your friends, nor as the people in your town, nor as the people in your state. You saw what happened to Joe Biden when his mental decline clearly became a reason to urge him out of the race. When the pressure is there, it’s hard to ignore. But sadly the truth is that his stance on Gaza wasn’t what caused him to drop out, and no significant pressure has even manifested.
They are not defending him, they just disagree with your view specifically that he is personally responsible for this and you are conflating that to be defending him. You are perhaps not technically wrong that Joe can just end this, but Joe Biden doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and neither does the war in Gaza. The US dropping Israel like a brick might do more harm than good on the long term:
Kamala could align her position more with the people once she’s in office. And if future elections produce a more reasonable candidate on the other side (lol), you could actually punish them for it with your vote if they don’t. But right now, supporting Israel is what is seemingly the safest option for a candidate. The fact that is the answer they settled on shows there are underlying reasons that out-weigh just dropping Israel, and if you want to make an actual change, those underlying reasons are the ones you have to put to rest before things can change. Or… you can refuse to look at actual solutions, and just accuse people because they don’t believe in your absolutist stance which has a near zero chance to actually change anything.
You should be trying to change minds so that the pressure from people might actually make them reconsider their options. And by calling people who don’t immediately agree with you as being pro genocide, they’re going to equate being anti genocide with your position, and they’re going to see anyone holding the position as being naive. Even though it clearly isn’t, but you’ve wasted the first impression they could have had to change their mind. It will not make people who don’t yet understand the issue side with you to actually make a change. Now every attempt after that is going to be harder and harder. And so their stance remains ever in the direction of supporting Isreal. And leadership will once more have to appeal to that side.
Do you care about genocide? You don’t make it look like you do. Because most people take genocide seriously and don’t just throw around accusations about random strangers. And they understand the real barriers there are to reducing and stopping it, and who bears the most responsibility for those barriers, and who is simply forced to bow down to them.
This kind of provocative rhetoric is harmful if you actually want to stop it. You’re getting bombed by downvotes not because what you’re saying, but because the way you’re bringing it, even people that want to stop genocide consider you to be a negative impact on how we actually reduce it. Think about that for a moment.
You’re undermining your own cause, and it’s hard to differentiate you from someone who wants to muddy the water so we don’t discuss atrocities in good faith at all.
I respectfully disagree. Sure, it didn’t cure the world of ignorant people like we hoped, but they are not the average rational person. It massively increased the awareness of people about international issues like climate change, racism, injustice, and allowed people to forge bonds abroad far more easily. The discourse even among ignorant people is different from 20 years ago. However, the internet that did that might no longer be the same one it is today.
But honestly, “more facts leads to more truth” wasn’t the point of my message. It was “more spread of falsehoods leads to higher standards of evidence to back up the actual truth”, which isn’t quite the same. Before DNA evidence and photographic / video evidence, people sometimes had to rely on testimony. Nowadays if someone tells you a story that screams false you might say “pics or it didn’t happen.”. That’s the kind of progress I’m referring to.
Someone presenting you only a single photo of something damning is the hearsay of yesterday. (And honestly, it’s been that way since Photoshop came out, but AI will push that point even further)
I have a similar hesitancy, but unfortunately that’s why we can’t even really trust ourselves either. The statistics we can put to paper already paints such a different image of society than the one we experience. So even though it feels like these people are everywhere and such a mindset is growing, there are many signs that this is not the case. But I get it, that at times also feels like puffing some hopium. I’m fortunate to have met enough stubborn people that did end up changing their minds on their own personal irrationality, and as I grew older I caught myself doing the same a couple of times as well. That does give me hope.
And well, if you look at history, the kind of shit people believed. Miasma, bloodletting, superstitious beliefs, to name a few. As time has moved on, the majority of people has grown. Even a century where not a lot changes in that regard (as long as it doesn’t regress) can be a speed bump in the mindset of the future.
While I share this sentiment, I think/hope the eventual conclusion will be a better relationship between more people and the truth. Maybe not for everyone, but more people than before. Truth is always more like 99.99% certain than absolute truth, and it’s the collection of evidence that should inform ‘truth’. The closest thing we have to achieving that is the court system (In theory).
You don’t see the electric wiring in your home, yet you ‘know’ flipping the switch will cause electricity to create light. You ‘know’ there is not some other mechanism in your walls that just happens to produce the exact same result. But unless you check, you technically didn’t know for sure. Someone could have swapped it out while you weren’t looking, even if you built it yourself. (And even if you check, your eyes might deceive you).
With Harris’ airport crowd, honestly if you weren’t there, you have to trust second hand accounts. So how do you do that? One video might not say a lot, and honestly if I saw the alleged image in a vacuum I might have been suspicious of AI as well.
But here comes the context. There are many eye witness perspectives where details can be verified and corroborated. The organizer isn’t an habitual liar. It happened at a time that wasn’t impossible (eg. a sort of ‘counter’-alibi). It happened in a place that isn’t improbable (She’s on the campaign trail). If true, it would require a conspiracy level of secrecy to pull of. And I could list so many more things.
Anything that could be disproven with ‘It might have been AI’, probably would have not stuck in court anyways. It’s why you take testimony, because even though that proves nothing on it’s own, if corroborated with other information it can make one situation more or less probable.
You’d be surprised how many programmers don’t know who Torvalds is if you ask them. They might be aware of his impact or some of the things he did, but the name Linus will not ring a bell for them. So yeah, might be a whoosh, might not be, but there is enough plausible naiveness imo.
Wrong Linus, That’s Linus Sebastian.
Humans do. Humans guide and use AI towards what they want to make. And AI don’t make for-profit products either, that’s also humans.
I never anthropomorphized the technology, unfortunately due to how language works it’s easy to misinterpret it as such. I was indeed trying to explain overfitting. You are forgetting the fact that current AI technology (artificial neural networks) are based on biological neural networks. There is a range of quirks that it exhibits that biological neural networks do as well. But it is not human, nor anything close. But that does not mean that there are no similarities that can be rightfully pointed out.
Overfitting isn’t just what you describe though. It also occurs if the prompt guides the AI towards a very specific part of it’s training data. To the point where the calculations it will perform are extremely certain about what words come next. Overfitting here isn’t caused by an abundance of data, but rather a lack of it. The training data isn’t being produced from within the model, but as a statistical inevitability of the mathematical version of your prompt. Which is why it’s tricking the AI, because an AI doesn’t understand copyright - it just performs the calculations. But you do. And so using that as an example is like saying “Ha, stupid gun. I pulled the trigger and you shot this man in front of me, don’t you know murder is illegal buddy?”
Nobody should be expecting a machine to use itself ethically. Ethics is a human thing.
People that use AI have an ethical obligation to avoid overfitting. People that produce AI also have an ethical obligation to reduce overfitting. But a prompt quite literally has infinite combinations (within the token limits) to consider, so overfitting will happen in fringe situations. That’s not because that data is actually present in the model, but because the combination of the prompt with the model pushes the calculation towards a very specific prediction which can heavily resemble or be verbatim the original text. (Note: I do really dislike companies that try to hide the existence of overfitting to users though, and you can rightfully criticize them for claiming it doesn’t exist)
This is incorrect. A toddler can and will verbatim repeat nursery rhymes that it hears. It’s literally one of their defining features, to the dismay of parents and grandparents around the world. I can also whistle pretty much my entire music collection exactly as it was produced because I’ve listened to each song hundreds if not thousands of times. And I’m quite certain you too have a situation like that. An AI’s mind does not decay or degrade (Nor does it change for the better like humans) and the data encoded in it is far greater, so it will present more of these situations in it’s fringes.
How do you think toddlers learn to make their first own sentences? It’s why parents spend so much time saying “Papa” or “Mama” to their toddler. Exactly because they want them to copy them verbatim. Eventually the corpus of their knowledge grows big enough to the point where they start to experiment and eventually develop their own style of talking. But it’s still heavily based on the information they take it. It’s why we have dialects and languages. Take a look at what happens when children don’t learn from others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child So yes, the AI is using it’s training data, nobody’s arguing it doesn’t. But it’s trivial to see how it’s crafting it’s own sentences from that data for the vast majority of situations. It’s also why you can ask it to talk like a pirate, and then it will suddenly know how to mix in the essence of talking like a pirate into it’s responses. Or how it can remember names and mix those into sentences.
If your arguments is that it can produce something that happens to align with it’s training data with the right prompt, well yeah that’s not incorrect. But it is so heavily misguided and borders bad faith to suggest that this tiny minority of cases where overfitting occurs is indicative of the rest of it. LLMs are a prediction machines, so if you know how to guide it towards what you want it to predict, and that is in the training data, it’s going to predict that most likely. Under normal circumstances where the prompt you give it is neutral and unique, you will basically never encounter overfitting. You really have to try for most AI models.
But then again, you might be arguing this based on a specific AI model that is very prone to overfitting, while I am arguing this out of the technology as a whole.
It is originality, as these AI can easily produce material never seen before in the vast, vast majority of situations. Which is also what we often refer to as creativity, because it has to be able to mix information and still retain legibility. Humans also constantly reuse phrases, ideas, visions, ideals of other people. It is intellectually dishonest to not look at these similarities in human psychology and then treat AI as having to be perfect all the time, never once saying the same thing as someone else. To convey certain information, there are only finite ways to do so within the English language.