urbanriot Okay, let’s say for sake of argument that we’re going to restrict AI from learning more than we restrict humans, considering that humans can get a free ride on training; Who do you believe should be compensated for the ‘learning’ of an AI model and how much should they be compensated for? Upthread I suggested citing the source of the knowledge, which CoPilot currently seems to do, which actually seems like a great revenue generating scheme. Is that not good enough? If I were an author of a training book I’d certainly be very happy about that.
This conversation is starting to become bizarre. It’s almost like you’re already trying to treat AI models as if they are human, and separate entities from the AI companies that are training, deploying and profiting off the models. And that alone, should be a major red flag for the technology.
As for suggesting that citing sources is good enough to compensate content creators - that’s just not how it works. An artist could find that preferable. But that is the rights of the content creator.
Just like on YouTube, some smaller musicians make their content available. Because they aren’t popular enough, or play a style of music that would get radio play. So they might benefit from the exposure. But other artists very much do not like that. Metallica was notoriously against having their music copied. The key issue is that it is the decision of the content creator.
urbanriot Right, except we’re not talking about copyright, we’re talking about the result of learning.
But we are talking about copyright. And if you don’t recognize that, then it suggests that you haven’t throught through the entire issue.
urbanriot I would expect it doesn’t work as it doesn’t seem to be related to this topic, we’re not talking about the reproduction of content which I was sure I iterated upthread.
It is related to this topic. Because an AI is incapable of reproducing content without training. And training requires access to content, which involves copyright issues.
urbanriot I’m not sure how, capitalists arguably engage in far more philanthropic work than any other group and ironically some of the largest AI systems we have on the planet were created by rich people who want to make the world a better place.
You’re suggesting that property rights should be overlooked merely because you believe that this technology provides a benefit.
And, again, it doesn’t matter whether capitalists or anyone else are more philanthropic than anyone else. The point is, they have the choice to be philanthropic. As @Dks01 pointed out, they are philanthropic specifically because it is beneficial to them. And, it should go without saying, that many people, regardless of how much money they have, choose to be philanthropic. It is evident in how, when anyone even hints at doing something like raising the capital gains tax, or suggests raising taxes on the highest tax bracket, the endless whining starts, the op-eds predicting doomed societies, and the think-tanks start churning out content, that those who have the most resources are definitely only philanthpropic when it’s on their own terms.
urbanriot I am concerned that people are overcomplicating simple issues - if the driver was made aware of the fact that a self-driving car provides autonomous tools to aid the driver but the driver is ultimately responsible for the safety of controlling the vehicle then the driver is responsible. We already have rules in place in many areas of our life right now that have nothing to do with AI, where the manufacturer is not responsible for issues stemming from a lack of care of the user of equipment.
We are not overcomplicating the issue. The issue is complicated. If the technology is to be useful, at some point, it will not be the driver using an autonomous tool that assists the driver. It will be an autonomous vehicle. It will not be a matter of the driver showing lack of care of using the equipment, it will be a matter of the vehicle itself performing actions that might will potentially harm the driver, or others?
If a vehicle is being driven autonomously and it approaches a scenario where a collision is unavoidable and needs to make a decision between putting the driver at risk in order to protect a pedestrian, or putting the pedestrian at risk in order to protect the driver, who is responsible for that decision?
urbanriot At the same time overregulation and partisan politics are stifling a number of job markets in North America while foreign markets are growing as our countries are importing their products.
Again, this is just total Libertarian bullshit. It’s imcomprehensible that people keep falling for this nonsense. But it really does tie in well with the AI issue. Largely the same groups of people constantly whining that the economy will be doomed unless we get everything we want handed to us.