I’ll be the first to praise a bill that is actually aimed at helping artist. I’m just being realistic, everything being proposed is catered towards data brokers and the big AI players. If the choice is between artist getting screwed, and artists and society getting screwed, I will choose the former.
I understand it needs to happen but doing the opposite and playing into openAIs hand doesn’t really help imo.
No regulations is going to force them to retroactively take their current models offline.
Public facing doesn’t mean open source.
Never said it was but public facing means you can scrape and use it for ml projects. This has already been decided in courts of law. You can’t use data with personal information or data which needs an account to access. Peruse kaggle for a bit, it’s all scraped datasets.
do you have any idea who I am
I literally don’t, I’m assuming you are part of the 99.999 % of population that didn’t get upset just like I assume you have arms and legs.
Did you get upset about translators online when it happened?
I’m also assuming you use AI on a weekly basis like practically everyone else else.
You can give me a detailed biography and a list of every device, software and app you use, and I’ll stop assuming. Its fine if I’m wrong, point it out but it feels like I’m assuming correctly and instead of admitting it, you would rather get offended.
the open source bit
Paying 20x more than it currently costs to train a model will affect how many models are trained and given away for free.
public domain works, it most definitely is enough
Not enough to give a usable and competitive product. What’s the point of gimping open source so openai cam get all that profit. The jobs will still be lost regardless of if we can run these models on our computer or if a subscription service is the only option.
Artists and writers already struggle more than your usual workers.
I can empathize, I know it sucks. But regulations won’t change any of that. Deviant art will sell its dataset, the artists won’t be compensated and they will still have a hard time because these tools will still be available.
And please don’t call me “mad”
You commented under my post with a trite catch phrases. The tone of your comments aren’t very nice. I don’t know you, I’m going off of how you are saying it and it’s coming off as angry.
I couldn’t give less of a shit what open ai wants, I’m not fighting for open ai, I’m fighting for all the artists
What you want and what openai want are the same thing. Regulations directly benefit them by giving them and Google a easy peasy monopoly. Artists are never getting a dime out of any of this, all the data is already owned by websites and data brokers.
open ai should be investigated for profiting from data they acquired through the loophole of being non-profit.
This is patently false, there isn’t a loop hole. Almost all ml projects use public facing data, it’s accepted and completely legal since it’s highly transformative. What do you think translation software or Shazam uses? You probably already use AI multiple times a week. I’m guessing you didn’t get mad when all the translators lost their job a decade ago.
What do any of the concerns over the way data acquisition happens have to do with open source?
How can a company actually open source anything if the costs are so insanely high. It’s already above a million in compute power for a foundation model, how many open source projects do you expect if reddit or getty gets to tack on an other 60 million. Even worse, Microsoft and Google will absolutely pay a premium to keep it out of the hands of their competition. And no, there is simply not enough data in the public domain and most of it shit tbh.
You are missing the forest for the tree and this is by design. There’s a reason you are bombarded every day by ai bad articles, it’s to keep you mad about it so you don’t actually think about what these regulations mean.
You are being manipulated as to think giving all the power to big data and big AI companies while squashing open source is in your best interest.
Don’t do it at all isn’t an option. Doing it “ethically” means websites like Getty, Deviant art, Adobe getting a fat payday while giving our whole economy to Google and Microsoft. There’s potential serious job loss coming our way, and in your perfect world, all of those jobs lost would go straight into OpenAis or Googles pocket as a subscription service since any other option wouldn’t be afford to build a model.
It is regulatory capture.
Please actually try to understand my points instead of knee jerk reacting all over the place because of their media campaign. OpenAI wants regulations, anthropic got caught literally sending a letter to California telling them they approve the new bills.
I’m being pragmatic, I know any regulation is just meant to build a moat and kill open source, I know the artists are never going to get paid either way. I’d rather not have 2-3 subscription services be our only option and kill open source for what amount to literally no gain for individuals.
Reddit got paid 60 mil for their data, I posted a shitload of content back in the day and still haven’t gotten a dime. I’m sure companies like Getty will do the right thing though, right?
I’m sorry if I’m being harsh but you are being a mouthpiece for the people you hate.
I read the article a bit to fast, you are completely right.
For anyone wondering, here is the relevant bit:
The platforms learn what the student excels in and what they need more help with, and then adapt their lesson plans for the term.
Strong topics are moved to the end of term so they can be revised, while weak topics will be tackled more immediately, and each student’s lesson plan is bespoke to them.
You make a fair point and a tool made specifically for this would probably be a real boon for teachers, but I doubt they incorporated it into their system.
I’m imagining something slapped together. Basically just an AI voice assistant rewording course material and able to receive voice inputs from students if they have questions. I doubt they even implemented voice recognition to differentiate between students.
Edit: I’m imagining it wrong, every student gets his own AI.
That said time will tell and if it shows a bit of promise, it will probably be useful for homework help and what not in the near future. It just seems early to be throwing it in a class. At least, it isn’t a public school where parents wouldn’t have a choice.
I’m very pro ai but this is a terrible idea.
Ignoring the fact that the tech is simply not there for this, how would an AI control the class? They will need a glorified baby sitter there at all times that could be simply teaching.
But I think the worst part of this is that certain kids still need individual attention even if they aren’t special needs and there is no way the AI will be able to pick up on that or act on it.
Recipe for disaster. The part about vr headsets is just icing on the cake.
It’s very weird for a community that’s generally tech savvy. I think there’s a lot of manipulation going on. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that almost only anti-AI articles get posted but I’m also against baseless accusations so I mostly shut up about it.
I mostly agree with what you are saying but I do think sourcing it ethically is a pipe dream.
It’s impossible to get all that data from individuals, it’s way too complicated. What’s already happening is the websites are selling the data and they all have it in their terms of service that they can, even Cara the supposedly pro artist website.
The individuals are not getting compensated and all regulations proposed are aimed at making this the only option. If companies have to pay for all that data while Google and Microsoft are paying premiums to have exclusive access, the open source scene dies overnight.
It really seems to me like there’s a media campaign being run to poison the general populations sentiment so AI companies can turn to the government and say “see, we want regulations, the public wants regulations, it’s a win win”. It’s regulatory capture.
I’m also pro piracy and use it myself for all my media. I still consider it theft even if moral but I understand your point about it stealing from artist. I just don’t think any current regulation will help artists. Personally, I advocate for copy left licenses for anything that uses public data but I sadly have never seen any proposed law or government document mention it.
I know how AI works. I was using collage to show that it’s much less transformative than AI while still being accepted.
It also doesn’t copy bits. It has an internal network of bits and it shifts their weight with each images. It’s learning from the images akin to how a human would, not copying. This is far from a perfect analogy, there’s a mountain that separates a human brain from a neural network, it’s just that both processes would be copying under your definition.
If I write a reference book, I need to reference my source if I’m quoting things. Even if I saw it in 2 different books .
This is a tool to help and guide. In terms of LLMs, trying to get references out of it is just a terrible use case. It’s suppose to be verified at all times and clearly should never be itself quoted.
For images, this is like expecting each artists to reference what influenced them. Having unrealistic thoroughly invented expectations doesn’t mean the tech is failing or bad.
This kind of attitude has some weird “everything has to be true on the internet” vibe. I wouldn’t expect actual truth and references from reddit posts, I don’t understand why people expect it from a guided rng machine.
If I read a book into a podcast and change a few words, take credit and don’t give any to the original author is that ok?
If you read a hundred books and then built a podcast episode on what you learned from all those book, that would be okay and is a lot closer to what llms are doing.
Its just a combined data scraper with some random data.
That’s what AI is. 98% of machine learning is scrapping data and training models on it.
It’s asinine to compare AI with block chain. Block chain uses are very limited while my own 60 year old mother uses AI in her work. It depends on your work but there’s immense use cases for AIs, and most people that use it regularly can attest it’s a huge productivity boost even if it isn’t perfect and it has to be verified.
I also suggest you look up copyright laws. It’s clearly transformative. If collage is legal, how can AI not be?
Not to mention that we use AI already everyday. Any app that identifies songs, plants or insects uses AI. So does Google translate or your autocorrect on your phone (I’m not entirely certain about the second one).
If our government won’t force these companies to copyleft the models, the least they could do is not create a walled garden where only Microsoft and Google can afford to train models, something you are advocating without realizing. You are essentially being a mouthpiece for big AI companies and big data companies who are trying to shoot open source in the foot.
Individuals aren’t getting a dime, this is about if we can run these models on our PC or only through their subscription service.
Have you ever used Google translate or apps that identify bugs/plants/songs? AI is used in products you most likely use every week.
You are also arguing for a closed garden system where companies like reddit and Getty get to dictate who can make models and at what price.
Individual are never getting a dime out of this. In a perfect world, governments would be fighting for copyleft licenses for anything using big data but every law being proposed is meant to create a soft monopoly owned by Microsoft and Google and kill open-source.
Lemme is very pro-piracy so that’s kind of a silly statement. It’s also worth noting that AI is clearly transformative. Collage is literally legal, how could AI be stealing?
The problem is that it’s making the field hyper competitive by “stealing” jobs, but photoshop and photography did this as well in their time.
No one cried about translators losing their niche because of Google since just like generative AI, it benefits society as a whole in the end.
He said generally intelligent, In the context of the first reply using the term AGI. There is a difference between artificial intelligence and artificial general intelligence.
I make sure to only dream about Tesla’s (they actually work in the dream world)
Interactive dream worlds is essentially full dive vr. I guess you could just not use it, and while you’re dreaming about losing your teeth, I’ll be living through whatever movie I picked before going to bed.
So for those that didn’t read the article, it basically explains how LLMs have a negative connotation about AAE. When asked to associate words with AAE written phrases, it used words like “aggressive”. When given a normal English phrase and the same phrase but in AAE and then asked what jobs would suit this person, the LLM gave low income jobs for the AAE statement with broader options for the normal English one.
It’s a serious problem because people that naturally write in AAE are most likely getting worse results. It stems mostly from old rascist newspaper articles and similar things.
For those that cannot access it:
New York (CNN) — Yelp filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google on Wednesday, alleging Google used its monopoly to dominate local search and advertising markets.
A federal judge’s ruling that Google violated US antitrust law with its search business earlier in August paved the way for the lawsuit by Yelp, another major tech company that allows users to write reviews of local businesses. Yelp has long raised grievances with Google’s search dominance, saying in the complaint Google had stymied Yelp’s reach since rejecting the tech giant’s offer to buy the platform.
“Our case is about Google, the largest information gatekeeper in existence, putting its heavy thumb on the scale to stifle competition and keep consumers within its own walled garden,” Yelp said in an online blog post on Wednesday.
The staggering defeat for Google in the US District Court of the District of Columbia had the potential to reshape how millions of Americans get their information online. Wednesday’s Yelp lawsuit was one of the first steps taken since US District Judge Amit Mehta called Google a “monopolist” in the opinion.
“Yelp’s claims are not new. Similar claims were thrown out years ago by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), and recently by the judge in the DOJ’s (Department of Justice’s) case. On the other aspects of the decision to which Yelp refers, we are appealing. Google will vigorously defend against Yelp’s meritless claims,” a Google spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday.
CNN has reached out to Google for comment.
The Wednesday lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Francisco, alleges that Google manipulates results to promote its own local search offerings when a customer searches for such results on Google. That allows Google to unfairly outperform its rivals, Yelp said.
That means when a user searches up a local restaurant, Google allegedly uses its monopoly power to serve them any and all information – from directions to hours to reviews – meaning people don’t have to click on a single outside source such as Yelp.
Yelp isn’t the only specialized search provider. Sites like travel provider Expedia, job and employer reviewer Glassdoor and real estate site Zillow were described in the complaint as threats to Google “on a level playing field.”
“In other words, Google abuses its monopoly power in general search to keep users within Google’s owned ecosystem and prevents them from going to rival sites,” the statement said.
Yelp claims Google does this because the quality of reviews on Yelp and other services is better. Yelp cited an FTC report that said 32% of reviews on Google have no text, while review text is always required on its own platform.
“Google, which was late to market in this respect, has never been able to develop a high-quality local search service to rival that of Yelp and other local search platforms,” the 66-page complaint said.
Google has historically spent billions on exclusive contracts to become the world’s default search engine – allowing it to stomp on any sort of rival from Bing, DuckDuckGo, to even more specialized platforms like Yelp.
Specifically, Google’s exclusive deals with Apple and other key players in the mobile ecosystem were anticompetitive, Mehta wrote in the opinion from earlier this month. Mehta wrote that Google has also charged high prices in search advertising that reflect its monopoly power in search.
The court earlier in August did not find that Google has a monopoly in search ads. But Yelp, which also sells local search advertising, is arguing that Google’s monopoly entices local advertising to depend on Google. This allows Google to charge these businesses higher fees.
Google said in a statement then that it plans to appeal the decision, and that Mehta’s opinion recognized Google as the internet’s best search engine — an argument the company had made in court as the reason consumers preferred Google over the competition.
In the lawsuit, Yelp said Google’s actions hurt its business by lowering its traffic, reducing advertising revenues and raising Yelp’s own costs.
Yelp is seeking monetary damages and an “injunction prohibiting Google from continuing to engage in the anticompetitive practices.”
CNN’s Clare Duffy and Brian Fung contributed to this report.
This story has been updated with additional context and developments.
The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.
I’m usually very suspicious of anything related to hydrogen but this seems like a great way to go about it.
“But honey, the car took me to the strip club, it isn’t my fault”