200fifty

side note, but I freaking love Machine of Death. what a cool book that came into existence in such a weird way

The really annoying thing is, the people behind AI surely ought to know all this already. I remember just a few years ago when DALL-E mini came out, and they'd purposefully not trained it on pictures of human faces so you couldn't use it to generate pictures of human faces -- they'd come out all garbled. What's changed isn't that they don't know this stuff -- it's that the temptation of money means they don't care anymore

Can AI companies legally ingest copyrighted materials found on the internet to train their models, and use them to pump out commercial products that they then profit from? Or, as the tech companies claim, does generative AI output constitute fair use?

This is kind of the central issue to me honestly. I'm not a lawyer, just a (non-professional) artist, but it seems to me like "using artistic works without permission of the original creators in order to create commercial content that directly competes with and destroys the market for the original work" is extremely not fair use. In fact it's kind of a prototypically unfair use.

Meanwhile Midjourney and OpenAI are over here like "uhh, no copyright infringement intended!!!" as though "fair use" is a magic word you say that makes the thing you're doing suddenly okay. They don't seem to have very solid arguments justifying them other than "AI learns like a person!" (false) and "well google books did something that's not really the same at all that one time".

I dunno, I know that legally we don't know which way this is going to go, because the ai people presumably have very good lawyers, but something about the way everyone seems to frame this as "oh, both sides have good points! who will turn out to be right in the end!" really bugs me for some reason. Like, it seems to me that there's a notable asymmetry here!

Language designers are obligated to be linguists as well.

This is why I love Perl. Larry Wall has a linguistics background and created the only programming language where you can conjugate variables.

(I know it sounds like I'm making fun of perl here, and I am, but I also legitimately do love perl)

Not even -- it's a simplified Civilization clone for mobile. (It actually sounds like a pretty neat little game, but, uh, chess it is not!)

My main thought reading through this whole thing was like, "okay, in a world where the rationalists weren't closely tied to the neoreactionaries, and the effective altruists weren't known by the public mostly for whitewashing the image of a guy who stole a bunch of people's money, and libertarians and right-wingers were supported by the mainstream consensus, I guess David Gerard would be pretty bad for saying those things about them. Buuuut..."

First: our sessions and guests were mostly not controversial — despite what you may have heard

Man, you invite one Nazi to speak at your conference and suddenly you're "the guys who invited a Nazi to speak at their conference." How is that fair? :-(

No no, it's "order of magnitudes". It's like "surgeons general."

Even with good data, it doesn't really work. Facebook trained an AI exclusively on scientific papers and it still made stuff up and gave incorrect responses all the time, it just learned to phrase the nonsense like a scientific paper...

Truth be told, I'm not a huge fan of the sort of libertarian argument in the linked article (not sure how well "we don't need regulations! the market will punish websites that host bad actors via advertisers leaving!" has borne out in practice -- glances at Facebook's half of the advertising duopoly), and smaller communities do notably have the property of being much easier to moderate and remove questionable things compared to billion-user social websites where the sheer scale makes things impractical. Given that, I feel like the fediverse model of "a bunch of little individually-moderated websites that can talk to each other" could actually benefit in such a regulatory environment.

But, obviously the actual root cause of the issue is platforms being allowed to grow to insane sizes and monopolize everything in the first place (not very useful to make them liable if they have infinite money and can just eat the cost of litigation), and to put it lightly I'm not sure "make websites more beholden to insane state laws" is a great solution to the things that are actually problems anyway :/

I mean they do throw up a lot of legal garbage at you when you set stuff up, I'm pretty sure you technically do have to agree to a bunch of EULAs before you can use your phone.

I have to wonder though if the fact Google is generating this text themselves rather than just showing text from other sources means they might actually have to face some consequences in cases where the information they provide ends up hurting people. Like, does Section 230 protect websites from the consequences of just outright lying to their users? And if so, um... why does it do that?

Even if a computer generated the text, I feel like there ought to be some recourse there, because the alternative seems bad. I don't actually know anything about the law, though.

this reads like someone googled a list of gen z slang and then threw it in a blender with a bunch of weird race-science memes. who is this for

I think the only acceptable response to whoever is responsible for it is a highly aggressive "touch grass"