Well said, this thing is here to stay. When I first played around with gpt-4 I was filled with immense dread. I, as many others have, immediately understood what kind of enormous societal impact this would have.
But I put the question to myself, if I could magically wish this thing away, would I? I wouldn't. I understand the many that would, this thing completely upends the status quo. Massive swathes of people will have skills they have built up their entire lives become worthless. But the potential for good that can emerge from this, can potentially benefit everyone and the people that are not benefitting from the status quo the most.
If you think AI is a disaster, think about the potential for medical breakthroughs that can emerge from this. Doctors will spend fewer hours writing charts and more time with patients. Every underprivileged child could have a personalized tutor. The number of discoveries and ideas that can be generated are endless.
"Every underprivileged child could have a personalized tutor."
Tutor for what, prompt engineering? The impact of this on the kids is hard to fathom and just because "similar" advancements in the past opened up doors does not mean this one will as well.
I think it's more that the (ad-riddles, SEO-centric) internet is no longer the education tool it used to be, but chatgpt is. I asked it to walk me through cross-compiling for an old NAS, how to setup Ethernet over coaxial in my custom setup, what legal advice.I should take,etc etc. It did not give perfect answers, but the answers were good enough to build upon, and after working with of for so long, it really feels like it's a friend that's trying to help.
I can definitely picture this being a personal tutor to a child
Do you have kids? My young child wants to "ask the AI" stuff all the time - which is a relief, because I'd much prefer that over giving them full Internet access until they're mature enough. AI is a huge accelerant for childhood learning.
>When I first played around with gpt-4 I was filled with immense dread
Really? When I played around with it I was filled with incredible optimism and hope. It was an amazing companion that helped me with my code, answered questions, and what I hoped Google Assistant/Alexa/Siri etc would become a few years in. Sadly they never did.
This is amazing, and would be an excellent personal assistant when it becomes cheap enough for smaller personalized LLMs.
Yeah I really hate this line of argument as well. We obviously understand it can have a lot of beneficial effects in society. It's a strawman to say that people don't see that. The problem is nobody seems to be properly discussing the bad things that can and will occur.
> Same was true for combustion engines, they will probably send us extinct.
Climate change is a serious issue, but you cheapen and discredit it by exaggerating its impact. There is zero chance climate change will cause humans to go extinct. If my stance is incorrect, please reply with some evidence.
Are you seriously suggesting humanity would be better off without the combustion engine? Also, presumably an AI powerful enough to kill vast swathes of humanity would be powerful enough to prevent something like climate change.
It seems to me that he's really missing some of the major concerns about "AI" as it stands today. As often happens with new technology, the old rules that secure rights don't quite fit anymore. E.g., if I were an artist who had spent years developing a unique, recognizable style, I'd be furious to have a for-profit company use my work to create something to imitate my art. It's probably not illegal at the moment, but it easily could be down the road, and it regardless raises real ethical questions. I'm disappointed to see Gabriel fail to grapple with that here, where his cache as a prominent artist is being used by a for-profit company for their own ends.
There's a massive piece of the music scene that I can't imagine AI ever replacing. Some genres are formulaic by design, but the draw for so many others is the human experience and the inventiveness. Many people follow artists because they connect with material that could only have come from the artist.
One reasonable concern is that tech supplementation will lead to a deluge of derivative work, nullifying the efforts of the actual creators. That's always happened in some form or another, and does it really lead genuine fans away from artists they care about?
There's a comment in another thread about generating a song that includes Kurt Cobain, which is such a weird example because a computer could not have dreamed that up in a thousand years. A computer couldn't write a punk song, and mean it. It will never replace the open mic, the buskers, the songs passed across generations, the Zappas of the world, and millions of others.
>Some genres are formulaic by design, but the draw for so many others is the human experience and the inventiveness.
Those genres are safe (for a while), but they're also a puny portion of the market. American pop music is totally going to be replaced by AI. It's been nothing but awful, formulaic crap for the last 25 years, so there's no way that AI-generated music could possibly be worse.
By the time it does, it's no longer a "computer" it's a form of life, and that's not "training data", that's "experience", thus by all intents and purposes it's a "person" and so it is still true that a "computer" cannot possess the free will required to express ones self creatively
Even out of the context of AI, I think this isn't stressed enough in general copyright discussion, especially around piracy.
People often say that piracy doesn't actually reduce the sale -- which I fully agree -- but that's not the only concern artists have, especially some indie ones. I have seen both illustration/musical artists explicitly stating they don't care if "their work is enjoyed and known by more people because of piracy", they only want paid users to get it. I don't even agree with this sentiment, but I respect it since it's their choice to make, not mine.
"When an artist's work is copied for commercial gain, there should be [(a)] a right to choose to refuse it or [(b)] to participate financially.
If anyone legitimately feels their copyright has been infringed by this competition, we and Stability AI will work to take down the video until the dispute has been resolved."
StabilityAI and Gabriel are providing (a) but not (b).
If Getty wins, is Gabriel committing contributory infringement.
Even if what happens after text is entered into a prompt is not infringement, mass copying for "training" is done for commercial gain and it is done without consent. Google gets away with copying websites en masse into a cache for the purposes of running a commercial web search engine. Maybe copying for purpose of commercial "AI" will get similar treatment.
That said, consider what happened when Google tried scanning books. It seems that some of these training sets have used hundreds of thousands of copyrighted works from "pirate" sources on the web.
IMO, this is just another example of so-called "tech" companies, e.g., Uber, that can only operate if they are free from existing laws and regulations.
Does StabilityAI have a commercially-viable plan if "training" requires obtaining consent.
Peter Gabriel is fucking courageous. I love it. I'm a 50+ programmer. I can absolutely feel this shit pressing on me. Good. Are people right that there are ethical concerns, absolutely. We need to get busy realizing the potential and dealing with the issues.
I’m in your same demographic. However I see these technologies as career extenders, not career threats. I can learn things faster than ever and adapt to changes more easily.
As someone much younger (mid 20's), I have absolutely no idea what to do. I don't even think there _is_ anything I can do, aside from waiting to see what happens. What happens when programmers are no longer needed? That certainly (I hope) won't happen in 5 years, but given the exponential rate of improvement, I can see programming as a profession being gone in 20-30 years.
This wave of AI has the power to be incredibly transformative for good, but not given any of the current economic or copyright systems we have now.
I don't know how any of the proponents can pretend that this isn't an abject disaster on the horizon for anybody who depends on copyright to make their living.
This is the natural progression to the unnatural properties of the shared delusion of pretending like ideas are property or that it every was natural to keep them artificially scarce. If we lived in an ideal system where ideas are free, copyright didn't exist, and artists and programmers could survive and thrive without the ability or need to hoard their work as if they were physical goods, this would be a non-issue. The system was antiquated for the needs of the modern world for multiple human generations already, and this is the dam breaking.
> I don't know how any of the proponents can pretend that this isn't an abject disaster on the horizon for anybody who depends on copyright to make their living.
OK, I'll bite. How is the an abject disaster on the horizon for... let's say, novelists?
My wife is a novelist who widely participates in fiction writing communities, and a lot of competitions have had to stop taking submissions entirely due to AI work flooding all the submissions. There's been drama on and off recently with AI generated covers, too. Some waves have been made with people winning contests with AI generated short stories. Agents are absolutely inundated with AI queries, and it's only going to get worse as the technology gets better.
It's actually really scary for writers right now. You just have to look at the huge amount of AI generated attempts and think "what do we do when the writing gets really good? What do we do when most novels are mostly AI generated?"
People have spent decades working their ass off to get good and try to get their work sold, and they come out the end of this tunnel right into an era telling them that they're just about to be obsolete.
The last time we saw a copyright struggle like this was Napster. After a lot of ire we eventually landed on Spotify, shows, and merch. Musicians seem fine this time around, but graphic designers are in for a world of hurt. Artists and musicians mostly already starve, unless they're extremely lucky and famous.
Every class of artist will now be able do more than they could alone in the world before AI. They no longer need institutional capital to make big, ambitious works.
Graphics designers will have tools and will make movies and interactive fictions. They'll build their own following.
It'll look like YouTube and the rise of the YouTuber, except bigger and broader.
Readit News
But I put the question to myself, if I could magically wish this thing away, would I? I wouldn't. I understand the many that would, this thing completely upends the status quo. Massive swathes of people will have skills they have built up their entire lives become worthless. But the potential for good that can emerge from this, can potentially benefit everyone and the people that are not benefitting from the status quo the most.
If you think AI is a disaster, think about the potential for medical breakthroughs that can emerge from this. Doctors will spend fewer hours writing charts and more time with patients. Every underprivileged child could have a personalized tutor. The number of discoveries and ideas that can be generated are endless.
I can definitely picture this being a personal tutor to a child
You don’t need to be a “prompt engineer” to get use out of a language model. You just have to recognize what it is, and what it isn’t.
If that can’t be taught to children, there’s no sense fretting over AI. We don’t need it to fail.
Don't bother. People here love to miser. There's no way you're getting any positive responses to this. Let doom and gloom begin.
Really? When I played around with it I was filled with incredible optimism and hope. It was an amazing companion that helped me with my code, answered questions, and what I hoped Google Assistant/Alexa/Siri etc would become a few years in. Sadly they never did.
This is amazing, and would be an excellent personal assistant when it becomes cheap enough for smaller personalized LLMs.
The “think of the good” argument is over played. Same was true for combustion engines, they will probably send us extinct.
I’d like it if people just stopped with it. People aren’t idiots, they know good things and very bad things can be achieved.
What? Because we weren't burning fossil fuels before cars?
Besides forgetting about trains, steamships and the coal-powered Industrial Revolution, you're ignoring the billions of lives lifted out of poverty.
!RemindMe 150 years
Climate change is a serious issue, but you cheapen and discredit it by exaggerating its impact. There is zero chance climate change will cause humans to go extinct. If my stance is incorrect, please reply with some evidence.
Dead Comment
It seems to me that he's really missing some of the major concerns about "AI" as it stands today. As often happens with new technology, the old rules that secure rights don't quite fit anymore. E.g., if I were an artist who had spent years developing a unique, recognizable style, I'd be furious to have a for-profit company use my work to create something to imitate my art. It's probably not illegal at the moment, but it easily could be down the road, and it regardless raises real ethical questions. I'm disappointed to see Gabriel fail to grapple with that here, where his cache as a prominent artist is being used by a for-profit company for their own ends.
Peter is OK with AI consuming his tracks. But other Artists... not so much.
Deleted Comment
One reasonable concern is that tech supplementation will lead to a deluge of derivative work, nullifying the efforts of the actual creators. That's always happened in some form or another, and does it really lead genuine fans away from artists they care about?
There's a comment in another thread about generating a song that includes Kurt Cobain, which is such a weird example because a computer could not have dreamed that up in a thousand years. A computer couldn't write a punk song, and mean it. It will never replace the open mic, the buskers, the songs passed across generations, the Zappas of the world, and millions of others.
Those genres are safe (for a while), but they're also a puny portion of the market. American pop music is totally going to be replaced by AI. It's been nothing but awful, formulaic crap for the last 25 years, so there's no way that AI-generated music could possibly be worse.
Even out of the context of AI, I think this isn't stressed enough in general copyright discussion, especially around piracy.
People often say that piracy doesn't actually reduce the sale -- which I fully agree -- but that's not the only concern artists have, especially some indie ones. I have seen both illustration/musical artists explicitly stating they don't care if "their work is enjoyed and known by more people because of piracy", they only want paid users to get it. I don't even agree with this sentiment, but I respect it since it's their choice to make, not mine.
If anyone legitimately feels their copyright has been infringed by this competition, we and Stability AI will work to take down the video until the dispute has been resolved."
StabilityAI and Gabriel are providing (a) but not (b).
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66788385/13/getty-image...
If Getty wins, is Gabriel committing contributory infringement.
Even if what happens after text is entered into a prompt is not infringement, mass copying for "training" is done for commercial gain and it is done without consent. Google gets away with copying websites en masse into a cache for the purposes of running a commercial web search engine. Maybe copying for purpose of commercial "AI" will get similar treatment.
That said, consider what happened when Google tried scanning books. It seems that some of these training sets have used hundreds of thousands of copyrighted works from "pirate" sources on the web.
IMO, this is just another example of so-called "tech" companies, e.g., Uber, that can only operate if they are free from existing laws and regulations.
Does StabilityAI have a commercially-viable plan if "training" requires obtaining consent.
I don't know how any of the proponents can pretend that this isn't an abject disaster on the horizon for anybody who depends on copyright to make their living.
This is the natural progression to the unnatural properties of the shared delusion of pretending like ideas are property or that it every was natural to keep them artificially scarce. If we lived in an ideal system where ideas are free, copyright didn't exist, and artists and programmers could survive and thrive without the ability or need to hoard their work as if they were physical goods, this would be a non-issue. The system was antiquated for the needs of the modern world for multiple human generations already, and this is the dam breaking.
OK, I'll bite. How is the an abject disaster on the horizon for... let's say, novelists?
It's actually really scary for writers right now. You just have to look at the huge amount of AI generated attempts and think "what do we do when the writing gets really good? What do we do when most novels are mostly AI generated?"
People have spent decades working their ass off to get good and try to get their work sold, and they come out the end of this tunnel right into an era telling them that they're just about to be obsolete.
Graphics designers will have tools and will make movies and interactive fictions. They'll build their own following.
It'll look like YouTube and the rise of the YouTuber, except bigger and broader.
As to AI-generated content: Who knows?
[0] Towards humanity and creative endeavor in general.