So those subtitles were user submitted, or was it google's auto-generate subtitles? Because one is scummy, and the other is scummy sneaky and doesnt make sense half the time, lol.
How about the term "Boomers" being used as somehow degrading? What about poor people from that generation? What about the fact that - if you look back - the older generations always seem to have more, and the younger generations are always angry (especially the "boomers")? How about ageism being a problem? etc.
AI companies "protecting" copyright of big corporations while their entire data model is itself stolen is pretty hilarious. Or depressing, your choice I guess.
The copyright system is nothing but a corollary of the broken system we run overall. The story still the same, people getting rob of their work by capitalists.
@@bdarecords_ too bad the redditors "fighting" it were just a bunch of people all out to make a quick bag with no care about the rest. Not defending the hedge funds, but there was nothing benevolent about what they were doing, and many normal people were left with losses because they were sold the hype. It was the same pyramid scheme as crypto with a veneer of "justice"
I mean.... is this wrong that it is learning from information freely put out in the world? Maybe a legal change such that any NEW content put out after a certain point requires consent and/or compensation for the creator is the way to go?
Internet Archive is far more legitimate than Ai. And the Wayback Machine alone is critically important. (It's a backup and historical record of the entire web thru the decades. Especially useful comparing what news sites said yesterday compared to today. What headlines have been changed. And so on)
@@egonzalez4294 Even some AI maximalists agree that letting AI grow freely would be dangerous. Don't be so eager to deify the big calculator that techbros overhyped.
Someone tried to argue that AI was going to make creators more powerful. My reply was that isn't how companies were going to use AI: do everything they can do to cut as many people as they can out of their profits.
music streaming was going to make creators more powerful, only for it to turn into a corporate money machine that pays users a miniscule fraction of the profit.
People love to separate technology from behavior but it's not possible to do that. And there's absolutely a need to understand that if you don't want someone using technology in a specific way then it needs to not be worthwhile for them to do so. Consequences shape behavior.
Companies maybe not but open source yes. Unfortunately by making a fuss about training data you're playing into those companies hands to ensure their monopoly over AI because they'll be the only ones able to buy training data. It's shortsighted short term profits way of looking at it, kind of like exactly how a company would behave.
I think the whole scenario is simply over-hyped ... like this A.I.-BS itself:) (BTW guess who are the culprits for that, being the spokesmen of f.e. OpenAIs marketing division? Yes, greedy journalists and even more greedier data-scientists and crypto/Ai-"Bros"). The word that AI is a hallucinating cesspool and has nothing to do with INTELLIGENCE at all will simply spread. Oh and everyone can see for themselves that such "articles" and work is just an embarrassment in terms of quality and reason. People will simply stop giving those outlets their money or their attention, because most of us do not want to be even associated with this "soulless" nonsense. The most important thing that Tom missed is that this so called A.I. cannot be innovative ... NO! If you think so ... then YOU are the one hallucinating, hehehe. This kind of technology simply can't CREATE new things. By Design! By Principle! -By- Because of and how the TRAINING works! There will be nothing NEW ... which diametrically excludes "THE NEWs" (journalism) as a successful application area of pseudo A.I.! Without the human "slave workers" (in todays or another form, work stolen from journalist or sexist abuse of precarious workers from third world countries who actually do the "intelligent" part of the work (see Amazon ... it is disgusting!), doesn't matter) ... those companies are only big fraudsters with big mouths and hot air!
@@icantcomeupwithnames469 what are y'all talking about? if anything they're mutually inclusive. the only thing democracy has done for us is give us two rich asses to vote for, neither of which ever have anyone's best interests in mind. democracy is more useful to the ruling class than it is to anyone else. capitalism isn't going to take away our voting system and abolishing capitalism would make the need to vote pointless.
@@icantcomeupwithnames469 Capitalism has been the most inclusive system that humans have ever came up with, it has brought over a billion poor people out of poverty and into the middle class and even rich..... Socialism has brought us hitler and stalin, bread lines...... Keep drinkin the woke cool aid.....
If you go on google, download a few hundred copyrighted images, and they display them on your website for commercial gain, you'll get hit with a barrage of copyright infringements, and rightfully so. If you download millions of copyrighted images, but instead use them to train an AI for commercial gain, as of yet apparently that's ok.
What if you download hundreds of images, figure out what about them looks good, and draw a bunch of images by hand, copying some elements like shadows and perspective from them?
I mean, that's if we're ignoring the fact that transformative works are protected by copyright law, which AI tools are absolutely capable of achieving.
@@VecheslavNovikov This is a strawman argument entirely divorced from what actually happens in valid copyright infringement cases and AI model development. Even if this was a relevant argument this still creates the issue of "why shouldnt we abolish copyright entirely then if it never mattered in the first place? artists have been infringing on copyright for centuries if copying techniques is the same as an ai photocopier that jumbles the pixels a little bit". megaconglomerates still hold far more power with the current copyright system than corporations and both outpace the individual by a mile in being able to defend themselves. Oh right, the answer to that is because people need to eat and sleep before they can do the shit they actually want to do and the current system requires they sell their soul in order to survive, and people are encouraged to copy something that works instead of risk poverty making their own stuff, sorry i forgot about that. I for one would rather have 20 different interpretations of Avatar: The Last Airbender in a month than one every 10 years made by the company who just so happens to buy the rights the year prior. I would also prefer if everyone on earth was able to feed and house themselves regardless of their ability to work. how about we fix both before corporations decide that AI should be used to starve anyone speaking a narrative they dont like.
@VecheslavNovikov Art by AI is the same, somewhere it says by human hand. Argument is then if it's the person that programmet the AI that have the rights or if they AI removes the owner rights as you not totally sure what the AI will make and therefore you don't halve total control of the outcome
@@wck I would argue that the output of these tools effectively replace the work that they are trained on and have the capacity to drown out the original work, undermining a critical pillar of fair use (the effect of the use upon the potential market). AI tools by necessity are trained on entire works so that can be convincingly recreated (amount and substaniality of the work, purpose and character). Unless I’m miss interpreting American copyright law, training on all this stolen material seems fairly likely to be copyright infringement.
@@MrMoon-hy6pn tell that to universal pictures before they sue Sony over the VCR. Oh wait, you're decades too late and they lost that fight. So long as the machine has non-infringing uses (and it absolutely does) then the creators are not liable for people using it to do copyright infringement. That is the law. "these tools effectively replace the work that they are trained on and have the capacity to drown out the original work" - No. AI is not autonomous, it does not do any work without a human directing it. So, while it does have the capacity to drastically reduce jobs by making one worker as productive as multiple workers, it is still a human being that is doing original work using a TOOL.
Wrong, maybe. Bad PR, almost certainly. Illegal, definitely not. It is not reproducing copyrighted material, it is creating new material based on all the data it has been trained on. Which falls completely outside the scope of copyright law. Copyright law might change, and likely will, but until it does training an AI on any publicly available data, copyrighted or not, including youtube videos, is perfectly legal. That said, there are however some companies that have actually broken the law because they used copyrighted meterial that was not publicly available to train them without paying for it. AKA, piracy of copyrighted materials. The court case is currently ongoing.
@@DefaultFlame "it is creating new material based on all the data it has been trained on," I wouldn't even say that's a fair characterization. It's creating new material based on pattern recognition and representation data. Nothing ChatGPT does (or any these other AI tool) is directly based on training data. They don't even have access to the training data after model training is done.
I do think Gemini does show how pointless the AI we have now is. It will give you answer that is exactly the same as you would get if you scroll down past the gemini bit and even then it gets it wrong often times. They've put what $200 million into something that they can already do.
it's really the lamest possible implementation of the technology. they could've used it to make it easier to specifically search for what you want, like research papers, but it instead just summarizes the top 3 results (and usually fails)
@@TheNinToaster yes, but the fact that a tech company used so much money on a model that you and I can see with common sense would do more-or-less nothing is what we mean
I mean, is it really piracy when you read articles and then write it in your own words? because thats what AI does... why it is okay for me to do it, but not for ai company using their software? Really...
@@lazymass Because brain power 'n human effort is not equivalent to electrical power to a lot of people morally. To a capitalist, human hours 'n machine hours are the same so there's no problem. To a worker, you are becoming valueless 'n don't deserve to get paid for your work.
I laughed too when I saw that. I imagine it's simply because it is a wealth of legal information, as well as spoken/written testimony that is freely in the public domain.
No, it's just pretty much the only freely available dataset of emails out there. No one in the AI developer community cares too much about the content of the emails. Few people even care much about the dataset as a whole because it's so tiny compared to the amount of data the generative AI models need.
"They took the credit for your second symphony Rewritten by machine on new technology And now I understand the problems you can see" ---Video Killed the Radio Star, by the Buggles
@@VecheslavNovikov Because when a human does it, its because they are looking for specific techniques the artists are using and applying them in their own work deliberately, its often done out of respect for your own craft and the inspiration, when it is expressed outwardly in your work, most artists can see that and say 'hey this is very invader zim esque in its style, but its done in a way that allows for their persoanl expression'. When you take a bunch of images and put into a dataset, you arent copying the techniques, youre just ripping the work apart. Its not 'this is very invader zim esque', its 'oh no, you just traced invader zim, put shades and a scarf on him and called him zom going on adventures with his yaoi rival Doob'.
@@principleshipcoleoid8095 Generative A.I. does not "learn" It trains a matrix formula for transforming the data, the more complex the matrix the more accurate but also the more the marix is just storing the orgional works, without any knowing of what anything is. Its a bit like an oppisite of the brain, we learn and know what something is to the point where we can simulate it, then transform what we know into something orgional that we may not know, that may make new knowledge or emotions or even just navigate the world, then check the source material I.E. the world. (even our senses are not registered in our internal simulations *until* something is sensed that was not predicted) A.I. goes in reverse so it does not have to know anything.
I think almost every source in The Pile was heavily threatened by IP law at one point. People had to fight tooth an nail for their fair use rights only for a lot of those same IP holders who were previously threatening them to turn around and gobble it all up, somehow avoiding the copyright of small creators. Must be nice to own everything and make all the rules...
Fair use is when big companies take an individual's content. That's why we need to shut down the internet archive, and just feed the rest of the internet into chatgpt instead. /s It really is revolting how much of modern IP law and precedent ignores the public interest in favour of hypercapitalist megacorporations.
It just seems to me that communists like our host here are all for love and sharing and free access, and mostly against copyrights when it is them doing all the stealing, but up in arms when the big corps steal from them.
It may seem like a small thing but I'm very happy you pointed out the difference between a RU-vid commentator of news and actual journalists who are breaking the news. I get so sick and tired of hearing people complaining about mainstream media and saying that social media is the only place they feel confident getting their news when they fail to realize that FEW of those social media posters are ever actually breaking the news. They're regurgitating what actual journalists have written. As you said, being a journalist takes so much more work and money. RU-vidrs can safely remain in their offices while someone doing a piece on a war risks being hurt, killed or even taken hostage. People don't have to love the way media is presented these days but I think we all need to take a brief moment the next time we're about to rally about mainstream media and be grateful to the journalists who put in the legwork that social media commentators largely have not. I just don't see enough of that distinction being made.
Mainstream media is mostly regurgitating news too, that's just how journalism works in general. Most "journalists" nowadays are not much different from youtubers and have no budget or time to actually do investigative journalism. It's actually youtubers that often do, like this very video.
intermediaries? They sound like the bourgeoisie to me (in the traditional sense that they don't provide the thing, they just own the thing that hosts it)
But to host it costs money and resources. It is a free market for servers for sure. Unlike land, compute and storage don't have a cap and are man made. This would make hosting not a monopoly or the equivalent of land hoarders.
@@samarths a houe requires upkeep too, I have to get my boiler checked for example. I would also argue that there is a cap, since there is a finite amount of copper in the world. All of this is besides the point though. When I order on uber eats, who is actually providing the service? The people making the food and delivering it. And yet there is a transaction fee that goes to uber. I know from the cost of running my own website that they do not need to charge that much to cover their costs, it could be fractions of a cent and they would still make bank.
@@Janokins But it is truly a free market, right? In the case of uber and servers I mean. There is no cartel like behaviour. Maybe Uber works differently in different parts of the world. Where I'm from they don't have the evil monopoly like over reach yet. So, when they start charging a platform fee people are free to move away. If others are finding it so hard to make a platform then isn't their platform fees justified?
That last but doesnt make logical sense though... If uber(and other platforms) are doing ok in your area, what market share is some new startup supposed to eat? It would only have the room to grow where the bigger companies overstep the customers desires and charge too much or make mistakes. But they can grow comfortably, small increases, a new fee here, now you can subscribe to uber one here, pay for direct delivery here even tho it used to just be free part of the service. There isnt room to grow a new business in the market niche, until it is too late :/
@@cookies23z I read "There isnt room to grow a new business" as "there is no problem to be solved". Maybe that's where we disagree? > That last but doesnt make logical sense though Here is why I think it makes sense: Uber has a monopoly over nothing. Not over the engineers, not over the tech, not over the taxis, not over the cars, ..... over nothing actually. Which means if someone wanted to build a cheaper replacement app they should be able to (free market forces). The fact that no one is able to build a cheaper apps means that the folks over at Uber haven't overspent and that they have actually solved in the cheapest way. Where do you think the reasoning is off?
I felt offended when in my country, Brazil, which is known for having one of the best dubbing in the world, they released a Naruto game dubbed with AI.
*Is* Brazil known for the best dubbing? I tend to find most countries claim that theirs is the best. Certainly I'd never heard of Brazilian dubs being particularly good. Anyway yeah that's pretty bad, AI dubbing is definitely gonna be worse
@@sjuns5159 Most of the praise that Brazil receives is both because of the gigantic talent of the voice actors (like Guilherme Briggs, this guy practically becomes the character when he's dubbing), but also because of the adaptations that are sometimes made, like in the Brazilian dubbing of Surf's Up, known here as Ta Dando Onda, which adds several Brazilian slang words ("Taca a mãe pra ver se quica") and even adapts the names of some places to reference the country, but without harming the film. Some say that Japan still has better dubbing, but Brazil is still in the top 2 imo.
guess having a population of 200+ million helps having a great talent pool plus many brazilians don't speak english well. still i never heard of brazil as an exceptional example which is very funny @@fluf5517
Soon there will be so much AI garbage published that the machine will start feeding itself and producing ever better garbage. And some day, a major part of the internet is going to be pure gibberish.
I can always tell when an AI tool is used to narrate a video. Lack of inflection, mispronounced words, and other gaffes much worse than weird hands are signs of AI used. I experimented on without posting AI generated narration and found that I had to weirdly spell words to get the correct pronunciation, specifically with words that can have more than one pronunciation based on how its used in the context. That experiment proved to me that it's not worth using.
Can you though? How would you be able to tell if the next video you watch is real or if it's just a "better" AI that doesn't have the problems you mentioned? Or the one after that and so on. How will you know the point where AI improves so much that you can't tell anymore, and how do you know we haven't hit that point already? The fact that _some_ AI videos are discernable doesn't imply that _all_ of them are.
I can't imagine what it must feel like to know your videos were stolen to feed the models. I only know how I feel by being almost certain that something of the first drafts of my fiction writing that I've shared have been scrapped without my permission. Which is to say...not fucking great. With how much I don't trust the people who in charge of the place I posted too...I'm not exactly willing to share more than I have.
Potential solution. 1. Create an image generator that exclusively sources it's training data from Disney movies. 2. Watch Disney and Google etc Duke it out in court. They'd manage to find a way to make only corporate copyright count I'm sure, but I can dream.
Sora released a trailer a few months ago, featuring a "trailer" for some "Monsters going to Summer Camp" sorta film. In the background of one of those shots, you can literally see Mike Wazowski AND Sully. Mike is pretty f'ed up in the way AI-gen animated characters tend to be and most of Sully's body is hidden behind a snack stand but it is undeniably those two characters.
Seeing AI generated stuff is an instant turn-off for me. I don't know who originally said it but I've heard it said online "why would I bother to read something nobody bothered to write" and I agree completely. I recently found a channel that had a lot of really interesting sounding videos, but then halfway through the first video I watched they had a bunch of AI images and I stopped watching right then. Generative AI for text makes stuff up all the time, if I see someone using AI images I'll assume they're using stuff like chatgpt and then they've lost all credibility to me at that point. At least with the crypto bubble I could point and laugh, but AI is invading everything and it's the worst.
> why would I bother to read something nobody bothered to write Because at time it might not exist in your language. Or the does a much better job of summarising the points because the original author doesn't do a good job of logically connecting the pars and stuff. For things like meetings I find it super useful. Instead of watching 1 hour of umms and uhhs I can just read for 5 minutes to get a summary.
@@samarthsif it doesn't exist in your language then the AI is literally ripping it and translating it, violating copyright law. But that's still just a translation, and it's one that is certainly not going to be entirely correct
It drives me up the walls when my classmates use these ai "tools" like a web browser. They don't question ONCE if there could be false information there. I think this show pretty well how people bend backwards for anything tech. They think it's smarter than they are, when in reality, the ai is extremly limited by not only by it's human creators but the (often unchecked) input it gets. Like c'mon. Some people were told to add glue to their pizza or eat a mushroom that is so deadly that it will melt your insides and people STILL bow down to the ai crap. I mention this because I heard a lot of excuses for people using ai generated images as references for their art. The ai is NOT reliable, especially in terms of proportions. Why use extremly flawed programms when there is thousands of free resources in any language?
When it first became a big thing it seemed genuinely useful, now it's just garbage because it's already "learned" off everything that already existed and is just "leaning" from itself now. The accuracy and quality of the results is becoming ever worse. It's like inbreeding. The lack of genetic diversity leads to... issues.
One of my classmates tried to use ai to do the summary of a class project, we were supposed to cover the laws regarding primary education, even though she feed all the papers it would only summarize the bare basics of secondary education we had to do it by hand.
@@clray123anyone who knows how to do basic research and cares about such dumb things as "is this author an expert? Is this website reliable? Was this from a blog post? How old is the information?", i would say no, AI is not smarter, it just looks like it is. It's easy to look like you know something technical while saying random bullshit.
The internet has always been a sea of garbage with islands of some value here and there. The fact that a new type of garbage has just been introduced doesn't fundamentally change anything. Sure, it will reshape how we approach content creation, but I don't think it creates any kind of existential crisis, it will only accelerate changes that are already happening anyway.
The excuse of "the internet has always been garbage" being used to not care about the issues of generative AI is a weak and, to be quite frank, stupid one. Your basically saying that the internet is too far gone to bother make any meaningful positive progress, which is nihilistic as crap. We already have too much of such mindsets in the world in general, so perhaps don't even bother commenting so you don't waste your time (and ours) spewing such nihilistic crap.
hm maybe not existential but as the two other comments said there are other problems. i think its an interesting thought if algorithms and llm/ai are mostly or sometimes a blackbox then when is the threshold hit that its too calculation/money/energy intensive so we get back to mouth to mouth recommendations or more curated media...
The thing I worry most about AI that over $150 billion was spent on it over 6 months (god knows what it is now). What happens when the investors want their money back and we are forced to pay for this in one way or another.
That was banks, not investors. What will happen is the investors, including retirement and pension fund members, will get screwed while the VC/PE and startup owners get a really nice skim off the top as it sinks. So they get a nice several percent of that $150 billion bet while anyone dumb enough to trust them with their money lose everything. Of they really do want to have the investment pay off, but they will still make out like bandits if it crashes.
The sad thing is, just imaging how many healthy school meals could have been bought with that many, how many urgently needed surgeries could have been funded, how many homeless people given a place to live with that money....
The fact AI costs waaaay more then it can reap... the fact it is making storage and chips even MORE EXPENSIVE in these shortage times... The fact it consumes even MORE POWER then any other silly tech trends... There is just more wrong with AI tech then the NFT trend (wich LITTERLY stole from artists and forced copyrights on THEM!) I don't forsee Generative AI to stay much longer then two years. The reason is unsustainability. It takes one law... one thing... one small lil bitsy thing to make completely unsustainable... And it's already happening with them having to pay out major publishers.. but it's gonna get even worst for them due to the EU. YEP... Article 11 (formely known as Article 13 but became part of article 11) will put a stop to AI the moment the EU updates it to include any AI generated works. Cause now all AI models have dump any data made from EU countries... and you might think that is not a lot.. but it would break their AI and it would costs BILLIONS to shift through data and check all of it to see "Is this from europe?" It would litterly kill the bubble and sure you can cater to American,African, Australian and Asian countries..but Australia will soon follow. As for America and Asia? We will see how long that lasts with two continents preventing data that would cost them even more billions to pay for rights. Remember that the EU has kill a lot of bad practices in tech companies over the last years (something they do well thank kot) But also, the only reason you can ask any company of all data collected on you and delete it.. is article 11. So now if all EU creators go to these companies and say: "Hey.. you operate in the EU so do I, all this data you got one me.. SHOW ME.. and then DELETE IT. Or else I will have the EU sue your ass." And trust me when I say... when tech companies are losing billions in the tech... such lawsuits going to become frequent? That's just bad news...
@@unchainedmel1475 It's already unprofitable. Numbers from OpenAI came in.. they make 3 billion in possible revenue but their costs are over 5 billion. 2 billion loss per year. Millions of losses per month. also most of those billions are from investments. If even a ruling comes in saying: "You have to credit each artists and source credited in this generated stuff." It would take even more billions to do so. Generative AI or any AI of it's kind is a car teetering over the cliff with rich companies holding them up. So either more weight comes in and it collapses or the people holding them up go away.
@@icantcomeupwithnames469because normally humans would state who they've referenced, the ai takes thousands of creatives' work and merges into its own 'work', effectively stealing the time and effort the people did beforehand (as neither the user of the ai nor ai will credit the original creators) (hope that makes sense!! also tom explains it here at 18:39, i think)
@@twlxyl That's how humans work, though. You're influenced by every single piece of media you've ever interacted with. AI can just do it at a larger scale.
@@icantcomeupwithnames469 Simple, AI isn't human, it does not have the same rights. Your entire premise is flawed. You're comparing the AI system to a human, when you should be comparing it to an object of human creation itself. Those are subject to copyright, and so should AI be.
@@ttt5205Does a hammer have rights? That's nonsensical. Copyright is also nonsense in the first place. How can you own an idea? Anything digital is just a number, how can you own a number?
When everything is worth money, then money becomes worthless, or where money is involved, art integrity, ownership, no longer matter. We are quickly heading for that world where it doesn't matter how much of your fiat money you spend, all you get is garbage, because the talented, creative people have been replaced by the greedy....
That needs a very strong (and extremely poor) assumption: talented and creative people are not greedy. That is obviously not true. The only greedy people that are successful are the smart and creative ones. Like the folks over at big tech. So, money will not lose value. In fact there will be significant deflation. The "really" creative and talented people will use AI tools to make better stuff. So, more poor people will get access to good things. For example, chat GPT allows for free access to best in class tutor for the poor children - of course they need internet - but the greedy smart people have made sure internet is cheap and wide spread. At least that's the case in my country.
@@cookies23z He's definitely smarter than most other people in my life. He managed to align smart scientists and engineers to make rockets land vertically, get space internet working, build a proper recharging grid. I don't know anyone in my circle that can replicate that level of management.
@@samarths you're confusing smarts with luck, and HE didn't do all that stuff, he paid people to do it. and gee where is the proper recharging grid? the self driving car? all the satellites that he as going to send to orbit for his space internet? he's just a capitolist, doing exactly what they do to get more investors, call your company some grand name of past glory, make a bunch of bold promises, fool people into investing, then try to deliver on those promises, normal silicon valley poo, how's that tesla stock doing?
@@steve_jabz I multiplied every pixel in your artwork by two! and I have this cool new algorithm that makes *my* picture with just a bit of data! look how cool my art is!
@@jarofapplesauce They got it from publicly accessible information intentionally made visible to every PC on the planet. Yes they benefit from it. If I paint a public mural outside someone's house and it has a squiggly line in it, and when they open the door, their baby learns the properties of squiggly lines, it has benefited from my work. That doesn't mean I own every novel art piece that child creates with squiggly lines in it, because that's not how learning or copyright works. It makes no difference if instead of the baby learning things with the neural network inside their skull, it's an adult writing down some matmul to statistically learn the properties of squiggly lines, or doing it much faster using GPUs, or doing it more accurately using more examples from the internet. You put it out in public and people are inferring properties from it. If you don't want anyone learning from anything you do, don't say or do anything in front of anyone, and lock yourself in a basement your entire life. The rest of us will continue progressing.
@@steve_jabz The "learning" in "machine learning" is a metaphor. It's not the same as a person reading a book. Which you would know, if you read books.
The other thing you gotta remember is that AI needs real work to feed off and so real human creations will always be needed. Is the issue with dog breeding in a sense, if AI uses other AI data the small issues AI makes would be repeated, if that happens enough times you get a Pug like AI that can has it's eye popping out. So if people want AI to be useful and make sense there's going to have to be a balance between generated and humanmade content.
Until, like with dog breeds, people instead choose whichever flavour of AI model has a particular type of grotesque deformity that they like best. Some people will care more about the "health of the being" than others, and I imagine a decent number of models will exist that are designed to be more accurate than others. But I also anticipate the number of "this AI agrees with your existing worldviews" models will be considerably higher. Plenty of people, arguably the majority, don't like to be challenged. They don't really want an AI with maximum utility and benefit, they want a personal assistant that's loyal to them over all else. I think Pandora's Box is already open on this one.
Don't worry about automation taking jobs out of the manufacturing industry, we'll still need (considerably less) people to press the buttons and fix the robots...
There are companies right now literally hiring people like copywriters and designers to create new content to train their AI on. They're training their own replacements and their actual work will never appear anywhere in the real world. Just in some large language model dataset. It's extremely dystopian when you think about it for more than a second. We should be using AI to do the boring tasks that we created for ourselves, not the creative ones that make the soul sing.
This is not true for Chess engines. AI does not always need human players to get good at something. Mind you, I define AI as anything with an artificial neural network (which is a lame definition btw) The way it works with chess engines is that they play themselves for as long as possible, knowing the rules. There is an optimal way to play the game. Chess isn't a chaotic environment, so it was hard until it wasn't. The issue with current generations of AI is that feeding the AI its own generation creates a negative feedback loop. Art is chaotic; there are no rules but what we make. We would critically analyse what we've made and look for better examples elsewhere, but today's AI cannot do that. But if it found a way to "self-play" like in chess, where it can find rules to optimise for on its own, rather than given to it... Then, it would improve substantially. Synthetic data is basically that, and it's a work in progress with promise. AIs might not need human training data anymore.
Here's hoping copyright laws get repealed as finally those laws designed to terrorize regular citizens, are going up against businesses of their own size. Though more likely, you get the usual case, copyright repealed for big businesses, regular citizens terrorization remains intact.
It's disgusting that no matter what evidence there is of the theft, there will never be any significant consequences because government is designed to protect the property of the rich against the poor, and the property of the regular Joe isn't important enough to defend against them... "Because the economy." AI has a lot of great potential, but as long as capitalism and other hierarchical systems are the norm that potential will always favor continued oppression and exploitation rather than any greater good.
yeah tragedies of the masses (companies getting to own and sell something that used to be a public good) seem to be quite the feature of unchecked capitalism
@@marcus.H Is this a serious response? If so, re-read what I wrote and you'll find the answer to the first question. For the second question, "no doubt, because that's where technology is headed, and just like we no longer use wagons to move stuff since the invention of trains and cars, we will all end up using AI for various things that we don't today." Was this a serious response, or just a knee-jerk reaction to something that triggered you? I can't see it as serious, because there was zero thought put into it.
*EDIT: I no longer agree with this comment, and it's only still here because with this edit, the comment still says something which the absence of a comment wouldn't.* As someone in the field, I normally take huge issue with summaries of how LLMs work in videos like these since they tend to be hugely reductive and outright wrong. Not this one, though! Great job - you certainly did your due diligence.
I disagree. Repeated uses of terms like "regurgitate" implied to me a lack of understanding, or conversely a refusal to understand how LLMs and other forms of AI function, and misrepresents it, using words deliberately chosen to be derogatory, and to incite further mistrust and misunderstanding.
@@Kaotiqua that's what current "AI" is doing though, they're statistical completion algorithms that just respond with whatever is mathematically most likely to follow your prompts.
@@Kaotiqua That's very fair - but I saw it as 'writing ideas learned from the training data in a novel way'. I'm probably just too used to the portrayal being even less sound. Might delete this comment. It's very ironic how much emphasis we on the political left place on listening to experts on things like vaccines, but when it comes to talking about AI it's an outright refusal to even try to understand. AI can easily be shown to have a negative impact _without_ misrepresenting it. Let's all have some intellectual honesty and listen to experts.
@@Henrik_Holst You act like copyright law is extremely simple. There are still many open lawsuits that try to decide whether this is copyright infringement or not. This shit is complicated. To be clear: I don't want to argue against your position. I just want you to know that the issue is less clear than you seem to think.
Glad people are talking about this, main gripe with generative AI is how much data is being stolen from artists and writers that worked hard for years to perfect their art. What I find particularly disgusting is people using generative AI and then claiming the work as their own, in particular this is a large issue with music generators. Furthermore, it replaces the jobs that people actually want to do, instead of factory work for example. *AI in it's current state is technically "machine learning" which is what generative AI uses, AI is something different, although it seems OpenAI is getting closer to a genuine AI.
writing without citing. it got Harvard Presidents fired, but it is ok for a big tech company. it facilitates other people to unknowingly reproduce portions of other people's work, but is somehow not facilitating IP theft, because it is big tech.
One potential factor in "AI" reducing the number of perspectives people get exposed to could simply be how the programs work. That training process involves a lot of averaging, so it seems likely that the programs will end up tending towards centrist positions, assuming a balanced set of training data.
Not sure if that's a wrong thing. It's more worrying that those who train the models decide what constitutes a "balanced set of training data". (But then, who else should decide it? They pay for it, they make the rules.)
As an artist, one thing I find extremely frustrating about generative ai is when I can recognize an artist peaking out through the soup. But because generative ai are entirely new images, it is impossible to reverse image search to find an artist! If we could reference the images one piece of ai referenced, I’m certain we could see just how closely ai copies certain works of art. That being said, I imagine it is something similar with generative text. Reading something you enjoy, the tone, the pacing, the voice behind it. Wanting to read more by them, but then finding it extremely difficult to find that voice again. It’s stealing people’s individuality and profiting off of it
Plenty of AI bros in the comment that conflate human learning with the calibration of AI models with stolen data. The AI has no intent or motive, and even if it had one they'd be the slave of the AI companies. And let say the AI model was intelligent, what are the ethic of letting something being forced fed stolen data for the profit of corporations? But the reality is that these systems only use probability to generate words and sentences, and images, and the probability weights are calibrated by stealing data. There's no spin that make AI companies ethical.
@@tuckerbugeater "There is no such thing as ethical consumption" and "Unethical acts can happen in alternative power structures as they are all human and therefore flawed" are two phrases that can coexist. Stalin also counts for godwins law, make better arguments.
I am not an AI bro but I also dislike the arrogance where people act like they know for sure that the brain is so different from deep learning. Who are you to make that assertion that a human can make something original, but an AI model can only "regurgitate". Are you a neuroscientist? As far as I know it is extremely unclear how the brain processes information. Without knowing any better, we can not tell if the brain works fundamentally different than a machine learning model. Whether the AI has intent or motive is an extremely complex philosophical debate, but you present it as if it were fact. You can hate AI all you want, there is enough reason to do that. But please do not just dismiss very interesting avenues of discussion about what constitutes art, intent, originality, etc.
You can probably remember the first time you encountered neural network (or AI as it is more popular today). It was the first time when your translator of choice made sense while translating a sentence. It is the same principle, thousands of examples analysed, and it can tell you what is the probable meaning of word and also what is the archaic use. But remember, today generative AI can only tell you what's probable as well and thus it will be mediocre forever. Its not a revolutionary tool, it will generate only the most mediocre result, because it is its purpose.
Yeah, as an artist I'm leaning more and more anti-IP. (Maybe trademark is okay) When are small creators gonna learn that IP laws don't protect them, only giant monopolies? Disney stole the public domain from us, copyrighted a bunch of names and stories that are hundreds of years old, now they basically own culture itself. If you ever threaten their market share in any way, copyright law is there to stop you. Ownership of your work is only a feeling strung together by fragile social forces with no real power behind it. I learned a long time ago to not care if someone copies/traces/reposts my work. Honestly the harder you fight it the more it encourages people to be contrarian about it. If something is so personal to me that I can't stand the idea of someone else using it, then I simply don't post it publicly on the internet. I do see potential for creators to use AI for good. Could allow bigger projects to be taken on by smaller teams. Think- games, animations, etc. Things that normally require big bucks from investors to create. We could see new stories from people who never would have been able to get funding before, good and bad lol. Similar to how RU-vid and cameras getting better and cheaper lowered the barrier to entry for making videos. The best uses of AI I've seen have been small time artists and creators who integrate it into their processes for inspiration/ideation or to streamline processes, render things, etc. They have the skills to fill in the gaps and use it to expand their artistic repertoire. If anyone did that and got popular enough though, IP law would be there in a minute to stop it.
I'm a lawyer, and I've been thinking about this topic for a while. But something is missing in my chain of thought to get to the same conclusion as the majority of people, a little piece that, without it, I can't say with certain that this is undoubtedly wrong. I understand people getting mad with their work being used to train AI without their permission. But legally and morally (in a more broad sense), that's another thing. because the use is too indirect, the text used isn't in the algorithm of the AI, just the link between words in a way it's impossible to track any particular work backward, and the AI can't be used (directly) as substitutive to any original work. I'm not saying that this isn't wrong, I'm saying that I still don't have a conclusion. there are even more pieces missing to say that this kind of thing is undoubtedly ok. I think that if these Ais couldn't be used for profit, I would be totally ok with it, morally and legally.
I think a lot of creators main argument about using their work without permission is these massive companies are making billions off their backs with no compensation. Even if it isn't directly being reproduced, just in the abstract. It's kind of ironic given many of these same companies will go after people for downloading a single song or having it play in the background of a video like the famous case of the baby dancing to Prince.
Maybe you could provide me with some insight here: isn't this like, instead of stealing a car you just steal a tail pipe here and a headlight here until you've stolen a whole car slowly? Isn't that just as bad?
If you make your goal accumulating money for doing what you love, not only are you taking specifically from those who would take your place if you failed, but also encouraging those around you to organize to fit the structure that money has given to the shape of every industry. Industry of course being A word we use when we talk about profiting not off of providing for others goals and passions, but rather others whos goal is to do so somewhere down the chain. When did we stop calling this grifting?
I don't get your complaint. If I (a human) can read your subtitles for free why is it bad if AI does? I mean I get your argument about just rehosting your content paraphrased or not (semantically verbatim) elsewhere is basically copyright violating. but like if I ask an LLM to translate your subtitles into German or something so I can watch YOUR channel with subtitles I can understand what is the problem? Similarly if I ask an LLM about the substance of a video, it pulling from your subtitles to write it's own "original" reply ... what's the harm here? Like most tools it's HOW it's used.
Your first point: rather than spell it out, here’s an analogy: Fishing is cool. Scraping the ocean floor for every living organism is uncool. With regards to the second point, you’re conflating the training of AI with the use of AI. It’s great to provide a tool making things more accessible, but the way that tool was created is the immoral thing we’re discussing. We want the tool, we just want companies to perhaps invest in their own training data (y’know using the billions in profit they boast about every 3 months) rather than lazily stealing people’s work without asking permission or offering compensation.
@@CnutLongswordScraping the ocean floor for every living organism is bad because organisms are discrete and scarce. Digital information is infinitely, perfectly reproducable.
@@icantcomeupwithnames469 Not really. You can copy it infinitely, but it's still the same thing. Just multiplied. These LLM's have already exhausted the sum total of human knowledge to the point they're just training on themselves. Companies are actually hiring people to feed it new content to continue to "learn" from. It isn't actually capable of creating new things itself, just rehashing existing data.
Really it's a citation issue - if I write an article, but that article is heavily based on your work, ethically and potentially legally I have to credit you. Worse, if I write a book that wholesale takes paragraphs from your book thats copyright infringement. Ai obfuscate it's credit and produces work that poses as original when it isn't- we do and have criticised humans for this, people have lost their careers over missing citations
That argument "AI professionals" used to make saying that they didn't know how the LLM was coming up with answers is starting to sound less like genuine uncertainty and more like laying the groundwork for a legal defense in case the copyright lawyers come for them...
<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="1170">19:30</a> - Isn't that how everyone writes? We all use, whether knowingly or not, idioms or even whole sentences that we have heard somewhere. Everything is based on something else. Every story contains “tropes” that have existed somewhere before. Even many newspaper reports copy their content one-to-one.
no. it isn't. "AI" can only spit back out what it has had inserted into its dataset. humans CAN create new things wholecloth, "everything is based on something else" is such a meaningless cliché that ignores the obscene scale of the total dearth in creation at hand-and the fact that these models will occasionally just spit out complete plagiarism.
@@MelMelodyWerner Why do you write AI under quotation marks? And AI can also create things that have never existed before. You should inform yourself a little before you flaunt your ignorance.
I suppose the intuition pump is to ask how much an AI model would be able to do without its stolen training data, using only public domain material, and the answer is almost certainly "very little" because you'd have to train it on 100-year-old novels, news articles and Wikipedia. So it'd basically just become Wikipedia: The Audiobook.
"Fair Use", as AI companies are now learning, is, and has always been, a legal 'defense'. What has been happening is most certainly infringement, and since these companies are now competing very directly with a lot of the people that have been victims of copyright infringement, it will be interesting to see whether the fourth consideration of the "Fair Use" doctrine is simply erased from the books entirely or not.
Honest question but how is this different from a human watching the video and getting ideas for their own content? Barely anything, especially on RU-vid is 100% original. It’s built on ideas and formats from every other creator applied to knowledge which is public
Is it an honest question though? Hundreds of videos and articles have been made about this one specific question. You sure seem to have already decided its the same. To be honest even if it is I dont think Tom's argument about how this will affect journalism is incorrect and AI certainly cant do original reporting or even analysis. It doesnt have the ideas, it just has word associations and whatever information it can pull, uncredited, from elsewhere.
One is a person, the other is just a statistical tool. "AI" doesn't learn, although that's the word used. AI simply changes a little in an algorithm with an obnoxious amount of variables to better predict the "correct" output. If a human wrote a program and made random changes in the variables until it worked people would call that sloppy work, but when you automate the random changes and do it on a large enough scale it suddenly becomes "amazing".
As an artist and writer it has been demoralizing. I've stopped posting and I've pulled my galleries off of places like Twitter. Another thing to mention is the climate is also affected by AI...
If copyright was still some 14 years as it was originally (not that 70 years after death current nonsense), there would be no problem with sufficient public domain training data, so "everyone" could train good AI, not just selected few with enough lawyers. Another thing is that this is exactly how humans create. We see, remember (even copyrighted material) and remix. Same as AI.
The irony of corpos pushing copyright laws that serve them, while also making it illegal for them to then steal everyone else’s IP… only for them to do that too anyway.
If gen AI creates in exactly the same way we do, then the problem of it needing an ever increasing amount of data is solved. It can be trained on a very limited dataset and simply create the novel information for itself and keep learning from it, like we can do. Unless-- that's not really how it works and gen AI is in fact mostly derivative, where this fact is obscured by its ability to take many small bits of information from an immense amount of data and combine them through not much transformative processing, and where any trace to the original works is erased. That would be bad news, right? Copyright law doesn't take kindly to derivative creations, no matter how much data they're based on.
@@felixmoore6781 Of course computers are inherrently deterministic, the only reason an AI prompt gives different results each time is because it generates by starting with pseudorandom noise. If you modified it to use a single noise pattern, persumably a given prompt would always result in an identical result. Because computers are inherently capable of exact replication of complex data in the way humans are not. The best art forger in the world could not perfectly recreate the Mona Lisa. The simplest computer program could. Humans need to get better to copy more exactly, AI need to get better to copy less exactly. Humans also learn as a way of operating in our physical world, and most of our information is not of human-generated data. AI learn exclusively to be able to replicate human works, and are trained exclusively on human-generated data. People acting like AI's just 'learn like humans' ignores the vast differences between a conscious evolved lifeform and software, and between the reasons behind human learning and AI learning.
people's fundamental criticisms of AI are that the algorithms inherently use other works as a source to learn how to do what they do, but don't compensate those contributors in any way. they forget that that is how ALL art is produced, i "copy" every piece of art ive ever seen or heard any time i draw or make a joke, socializing is using the cues from other people to effect your own behavior, people just don't like AI models doing it because the purpose of the AI doing it is to be monetized by some random company. im not telling you not to be skeptical of AI but just understand what aspects of it you hate and why, because it's a retarded defence to say that it's "stealing" from the literal zeitgeist of humanity.
prepare yourself for the future, robots will take over the world. Not AI, but robotic people who don't critically think like you and me. semi-conscious beings who follow the herd mentality hellbent on HATE HATE HATE. "artists" who cry that's my copyright! but then copy or trace from reference, learning material, 3d models, photobash, books, magazine, EVERYTHING. this is the new paradigm. consume correct thought and then reproduce correct thought on factory scale.
Once ya'll actually get a law that says training a data model on publicly accessible works is equivalent to theft, then these videos can be taken seriously. Otherwise, it's just an appeal to emotion.
@@MissMoontree you can ask those Ai tools what their sources are. If you're just blindly using Ai tools without any sort of oversight or involvement, that's a you problem. The same applies to Wikipedia, you need to validate the sources there too. Don't blame a tool for your own lack of responsibility.
What nonsense. This is not about copyright. It is about not giving people credit. By making the discussion about the copyright system, which one can frame as something usually abused by big corporations, you deflect from the fact that here big AI corps are actually abusing the work of creators, makers and academics to make them redundant. Big AI is not Robin Hood in this story.
This makes me think that the future of all art will be either just robots, or we will have more private performances personalized to the audience. You could hire an acting troupe to take a play they know and tweak it to make it personal to you or your group. No recording allowed.
Using the works of others without adequately crediting them has been at the Internet's core. Most RU-vid creators never give any credit or cite any sources. You do not have a proper list of your sources, but at least you mention them in your videos. It is something, but I find it ironic. So, if any free independent media is to be killed by stealing content, it should have been. Or perhaps it already has. But AI wouldn't be the only and main culprit; the widespread plagiarism and thieving of content is such a day-to-day practice that almost everyone is blinded to it. And it will have achieved this without the aid of AI. It is people, I tell you. People!
I'd really love to see one of these videos that didn't take strong positions like "theft" and "obviously immoral" as being a given. This video raises very important concerns about how the economics of content creation influence what voices may be heard, but it buries it in so much nonsense about "stealing", always saying it in isolation, as if such strong language can be used without any moral work being done to justify it. What these companies are doing, and the impact it will have on society, is huge and important and very very worthy of criticism. Which can be said without making any unjustified claims.
In legal terms if any person did what AI did it would be considered stealing. If I wrote a thesis in the way AI did, it would be plagerism. That's the current accepted stance, so who argue against it has to be the one to make that argument.
Watching or transforming a video does not constitute copyright infringement. Only copying a video verbatim would infringe copyright. As AI-generated outputs are transformations of existing content, they do not typically infringe copyright.
This is utter scaremongering nonsense. If AI, for example, uses the same quote you worked hard to get from a source, sure it's theft and you could sue for plagiarism . If it generates a similar article without the quotes it doesn't have the same quality and merit as yours, nevermind if it "hallucinates" quotes. The only difference between me digesting a bunch of quality media and regurgitating it as "inspired by" that work without doing any of my own research, and AI doing it, is the speed. Referring to AI training as theft if it's not spitting out direct quotes is the same as referring to anyone who grew up watching your material as a thief when they produce their own videos.
Maybe they just want copyright laws to accurately reflect our intuitions about what counts as fair use. If most creators would not consent to their work being used for AI training, then the law's default interpretation of publishing a work online should preclude that use until the creator explicitly allows it.
Just some context on Australia's Media Bargaining Code: Almost all of Australia's media is owned by three massive companies (Nine-Fairfax and Fox being the most recognisable) and is horrifically and provably biased about what they post. All this code does is give more power to these conglomerates, because it starves smaller outlets and independents who don't qualify for the code and therefore stifles what voices can be heard.
Im not sure whether it is immoral to train AI models on the work of others without consent. Is it immoral if I listen to Pink Floyd and then write a song inspired by their music? How is this different from chatgpt cobbling together a thousand books into an article? Just how much originality should this article have to not be considered theft? Im genuinely asking from a philosophical point of view
An AI cannot listen to a song and resonate with its themes and instrumentation. An AI cannot read a book and love its characters, its story. An AI cannot see a piece of art and use it to process its own feelings and life experiences. An AI cannot read an article and be inspired to delve deeper into the topic, to write its own piece. AI is all about information, data, replicating that data for profit. Its not immoral because its derivative, its immoral because its motivated by profit with the intention to replace the very people it derives from. It is immoral because the existence of a tool that can mimick an artist/artsits exactly puts those artists out of work, because companies will always prefer to invest in a machine than in workers. An artist being inspired by others does not. Replacing individual creatives with a tool driven by profit motivated corporations is not even idiocy, its calculated and dangerous. I say this as an artist, writer, and musician myself. If someone sees my work, resonates with it, and feels inspired by what I do, taking some elements they learned from my work into theirs and developing it further in their own style, that's great! But if someone saw my work, invented a clever little machine that could replicate it to a tee, then started creating and selling that derivative work at a rate that I, as a human being, cannot possibly compete with, that would SUCK. That's it, really. 'Is it immoral if I listen to Pink Floyd and then write a song inspired by their music' - key word here, inspired. AI cannot be inspired. It can analyse data and regurgitate it, but it cannot be inspired. AI does have incredible potential when it comes to data compilation and organisation. I agree that having to search through loads of articles and books to find something relevant to the topic you want to write about is tedious. Having a tool that could compile relevant sources would be great! The problems begin when that tool stops directing people towards the work of other people, and starts competing with it. I also just don't think getting bogged down with these technicalities is a good idea. If it isn't immoral, if it isn't plagiarism, it is, at the very least, SHIT. Art and writing nobody could be bothered to make is shit.
@@portablegoose So your problem is with capitalism, not the technology. Advancements in technology put people out of work all the time, but because the system values people only for their work, that extra productivity isn't used to lessen the amount of work done, but increase demands on workers.
I hope we can use AI to build ways of getting nearly all of our news first party. I like the idea of something like the "engines" described in one of tom scots few videos on predicting A future. The idea was that an AI could automate the process of looking things up enabling someone to stay informed on anything from first party accounts at any time. The innovation he was highlighting was the concept of it recording new search data automatically, but I propose that had little to do with why it was science fiction. The impressive and practically impossible part was that it knew what data to trust when presenting the user with information from A public source. My favorite solution to the trust problem is to instead build A better way of recording and verifying trust on A communal level. This concept of vouching for someone in some way has always been A thing, but formalizing it allows you to treat trust as A filter to make identifying trustworthy information much easier.
honestly im getting tired of one person claiming AI is going to save us all, while someone else proclaiming its shallow stealing... just give it a decade or two, and no one is an AI weirdo anymore, because everyone will be using it at some level.
Yeah it's going to be the norm in 10 years. Corpos and idiots are using it right now for theft and pretending they can create and whatever but one day it's just going to be something everyone uses
but all Ai generated content on utube is unwatchable and unlistenable. narratives are always rubbish and not sensitive to how humans listen and absorb. so you have little to worry about. worry about the people who 'like' those videos.
I am glad you creative types are standing up to the AI. It was also very kind of you to stand up to the advance of Uber and AirB&B as it destroyed established businesses. They will come for everyone eventually.
@@samarths it's not efficient if it doesn't work within the system it was designed for. Uber is a fantastic example of this. Where I am from, the introduction of Uber has meant that 1. drivers who used to have sustainable livelihoods now don't, and 2. on the consumer's side, there is no reliable transport outside of very popular areas because of the way Uber has cannibalised other methods of transport and then disincentivised its own drivers to fill those gaps. Maybe that looks like efficiency on paper, but in real life it's disastrous.
They have been, and those cases haven't succeeded. It's almost like the argument that it's theft comes from people who aren't informed about copyright, fair use, and how data models are trained.
But does not human intelligence use the same learning methods? Then that "HI" produces an amalgam of what they've seen on RU-vid or Google News as monetized RU-vid video essays. If something has been published publicly, then it is intentionally available, NOT for out-and-out plagiarism, but it is accessible for assimilation into a larger knowledge base which can only be appreciated by other intelligence actuators.
Talk to an AI, there's no intelligence in them, just a more sophisticated search engine that can lie because instead of an actual database it uses probability to generate the next word. No intent, no motive, there's no reason to leave data to be scrapped and regurgitated for the profit of AI companies.
I have been trying to work this out too. My knee-jerk reaction was to think what makes 'creatives' so special that the automation of their work is different from the weavers facing the jacquard loom? Understandably, when it's your job under threat you are going to be totally against it, but jobs have been steadily automated away for a long time now. There is a difference in AI and HI learning, that is who profits. When we learn from school or books or youtube videos, the creator is being paid something. Sometimes we forget these things cost because we don't pay directly but through taxes or adverts. This is not the case with AI sucking up everything ever written so the companies can make a profit (eventually) without paying all those making the content that drives the AI, for which they would normally be paid. Another difference is that the jacquard loom didn't take knowledge/imagination/creativity as a raw ingredient. These AIs need to be fed with new information or they will soon be obsolete. When individuals learn, we collectively benefit. When AI learns, do we benefit? It feels like we do but I'm not so sure. Either way, all our jobs are being automated away and we need to think about what this means. In the past and now the response is 'there will be better jobs', but where does this lead and can it last?
@@SpaceMonkeyTCT You make three points that I want to address: - 1. Does a site make money from an AI data scoop? Acknowledging that I make an assumption, I assume that it is the AI creators who arrange access to the site, engaging normal earning protocols. I'm not sure how an "independent" AI would bypass those criteria, not without actual fraud. - 2. Who benefits from AI's knowledge? The same as benefit from HI knowledge and in much the same way. Some AI knowledge is shared freely, some is sold. - 3. Are humans competing with AI? Probably, at more superficial levels. I imagine AI could write any number of money-making superhero movies. But _Lincoln,_ or _Lawrence of Arabia,_ or _Twelve Angry Men,_ or _Arrival,_ not so much. I think the competition would be the difference between a home-cooked meal and a microwave burrito. I may be wrong, but my understanding of AI is that it does not need a constant inflow of new information. ChatGPT has operated with cutoff dates. The value of a large language model is the amalgamation and synthesis of large bodies of knowledge to the benefit of its users, not in cherry-picking data. As to my own involvement, I have written works of fiction which appear on a story site. I receive no payment; I write for my own pleasure. I would be honored if some of my expressed concepts were spread. I would be pissed if my works were plagiarized and I would likely take legal action.
it seems like saying people reacting to content are "stealing" the content they are reacting too. i just dont get how using something to train ai is the same as stealing something and making no changes and then posting it as your own. whats the differance of a human taking a video and reacting too it and an AI tool taking a video and using it too make a new video. If the "Reactor" doesnt have to pay any copy right why should the AI tool
I would caution people from dooming too much over this, as anyone knowledgeable in how large language models are trained and the output they produce, there's not a lot there that really can be made anew. It can summarize information, but there's always going to be someone who feeds the model the data it parses for training or how it works out other problems. There will always need to be a person in the loop to actually work the model to do what you or a company wants the model to do. Economically, it does cut the need for the amount of writers needed for a company such as the New York Times, the Guardian, Fox News, CNN and other outlets. However, it is not something that is inherently negative in terms of the economic impact, socially, you will see people having to find jobs in different fields that might not be related to the field that they have just left. There will be an adjustment period as with other fields when there was a development that significantly increased the productivity of the worker.
