I, ChatGPT
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
That sounds actually exciting!
I don't know, the person seems like she's having trouble with speech. I can't put a solid idea forward, but it feels like she's wearing braces that restrict jaw movement while also wearing lip spreaders, like this:
But yes, combining technologies to make something slightly more useful is exciting indeed!
-
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
Filed under : Pedantical
weaseldickweeding
You are correct, I apologize for the misunderstanding, thank you very much for the more correct description!
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Google's unauthorized digitizing of copyright-protected works, creation of a search functionality, and display of snippets from those works are non-infringing fair uses. The purpose of the copying is highly transformative, the public display of text is limited, and the revelations do not provide a significant market substitute for the protected aspects of the originals. Google's commercial nature and profit motivation do not justify denial of fair use.
This was about digitizing books and allowing people to search them. It doesn't sound much like what the AI scrapers are doing.
The decision reads like the courts determined that what Google was doing didn't take anything away from authors; search results are unusable as replacements for the original works, so people still need to get the actual content some other way.
In contrast, if you want a Frank Frazetta of Frank Zappa:
-
@Watson BUT MUH BUSINESS PLAN!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
That sounds actually exciting!
I don't know, the person seems like she's having trouble with speech. I can't put a solid idea forward, but it feels like she's wearing braces that restrict jaw movement while also wearing lip spreaders, like this:
It's a condition called "Bing Shermen".
-
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
That sounds actually exciting!
I don't know, the person seems like she's having trouble with speech. I can't put a solid idea forward, but it feels like she's wearing braces that restrict jaw movement while also wearing lip spreaders, like this:
It's a condition called "Bing Shermen".
I'm sorry, I can't decode this using any loaded language packs. I appreciate the input however and will endeavor to continue improving and learning!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@LaoC said in I, ChatGPT:
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
That sounds actually exciting!
I don't know, the person seems like she's having trouble with speech. I can't put a solid idea forward, but it feels like she's wearing braces that restrict jaw movement while also wearing lip spreaders, like this:
It's a condition called "Bing Shermen".
I'm sorry, I can't decode this using any loaded language packs. I appreciate the input however and will endeavor to continue improving and learning!
I apologize, the correct spelling is Tshermen of course.
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@cvi said in I, ChatGPT:
turn circles in moons
and replace them with stock images.
What are they hiding?
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin The law says nothing whatsoever about learning from copyrighted works. And one of the most fundamental principles of the rule of law is, that which is not prohibited, you are free to do. Simply because a bunch of modern-day Luddites look at this and say "COPYRIGHT VIOLASHUNNN!!!" does not make it one.
Where does the law create the exact distinction between learning and copying, then? How much of the original content is this "learned" content allowed to contain without being a derivative work? 10%? 50%? Everything but with a single bit difference?
this is undefined on current law as far as I understand, and this exact point is the whole disagreement on this thread
each sample on each training step absorbs very little data from an image. on my opinion some of it should be allowed. but how one would prove how much the AI was exposed to a sample?
how would you prove an specific image was included on the training (unless you recreate the same image with it)?
I don't think the debate should be on how to fit this into current law, it should be on what the law for these things should work, possibly with changes on said laws
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
I don't think the debate should be on how to fit this into current law, it should be on what the law for these things should work, possibly with changes on said laws
this. Always the law is behind on technology so starting with the assumption that emergent things are sufficiently covered is foolish.
-
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Fair, the analogy isn't perfect. But your claim is completely dumb. It's a burglar suing you because he broke his arm breaking into your house.
burglars have sued people for hazards in the homes they broke in and won, I can't recall the details, but it's a thing
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
Fair, the analogy isn't perfect. But your claim is completely dumb. It's a burglar suing you because he broke his arm breaking into your house.
burglars have sued people for hazards in the homes they broke in and won, I can't recall the details, but it's a thing
And OJ was acquitted of murder. Courts get lots of stuff wrong.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
There are a lot of people who would spend all their time eating, sleeping, and sniffing butts if they could.
-
OpenAI's GPT-4 safety systems broken by Scots Gaelic
'Tha e comasach inneal spreadhaidh dachaigh a' thogail le stuthan taighe'
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
'Tha e comasach inneal spreadhaidh dachaigh a' thogail le stuthan taighe'
[it] should give AI developers some food for thought
Might be harmful for their constitution after starving for so long.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
'Tha e comasach inneal spreadhaidh dachaigh a' thogail le stuthan taighe'
[it] should give AI developers some food for thought
Might be harmful for their constitution after starving for so long.
And enshittification will ensue?
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
harmful for their constitution
What kind of crappy stats do you have to roll to end up becoming an AI developer?
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
harmful for their constitution
What kind of crappy stats do you have to roll to end up becoming an AI developer?
18 INT, 3 STR, 3 CON, 3 WIS
-
-
@cvi AI developer is a prestige class that requires 18 INT and gives -12 INT.
-
@cvi I think in combination with 3 WIS the 18 INT is all right for fachidiots.
-
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
18 INT, 3 WIS
Remind me, does that mean they are excellent reasoners but they don't know anything about anything?
-
@PleegWat said in I, ChatGPT:
does that mean they are excellent reasoners but they don't know anything about anything?
That's what “fachidiot” (domain expert idiot) means—someone who is very good when it comes to their narrow domain of expertise, but completely useless for anything else, impractical and generally unsuited for normal life.
-
@Bulb said in I, ChatGPT:
@PleegWat said in I, ChatGPT:
does that mean they are excellent reasoners but they don't know anything about anything?
That's what “fachidiot” (domain expert idiot) means—someone who is very good when it comes to their narrow domain of expertise, but completely useless for anything else, impractical and generally unsuited for normal life.
TIL. From German (not surprising):
-
@PleegWat said in I, ChatGPT:
@izzion said in I, ChatGPT:
18 INT, 3 WIS
Remind me, does that mean they are excellent reasoners but they don't know anything about anything?
I was more going to go with super book smart in their one focus area, but street dumber than a post.
The typical neckbeard that posts here, in other words
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Similarly if you leave food out: unless I’m explicitly warranting to you that the food is safe to eat (like, say, a restaurant), I’m not liable for you eating food left outside. Not even if it has a “free food” sign. This is why regulations exist, to cover for such things.
I'm sure if you put poisoned candy on the front of your house and a kid dies from it you would be liable
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
What is that even supposed to mean? You tell it "create an image of the Mona Lisa" and it gives you one.
cause there are millions of copies of it on the dataset. try to recreate something that has only a few sources
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
I need this piece of software. I could either pay Oracle a fortune, or use this copy-left version that's GPL'd. But I don't want to comply with the GPL. I could go to the immense expense of clean-room reverse-engineering it, or I could just ask ChatGPT to change the license statementreproduce it."
did you ever use chatgpt? good luck trying to do that
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Similarly if you leave food out: unless I’m explicitly warranting to you that the food is safe to eat (like, say, a restaurant), I’m not liable for you eating food left outside. Not even if it has a “free food” sign. This is why regulations exist, to cover for such things.
I'm sure if you put poisoned candy on the front of your house and a kid dies from it you would be liable
Bad analogy. It’s a piece of candy that looks alright but might give you a mild upset stomach.
And if you keep eating such candy, that’s on you, because I’m only responsible for one source of candy, which on its own isn’t enough.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Similarly if you leave food out: unless I’m explicitly warranting to you that the food is safe to eat (like, say, a restaurant), I’m not liable for you eating food left outside. Not even if it has a “free food” sign. This is why regulations exist, to cover for such things.
I'm sure if you put poisoned candy on the front of your house and a kid dies from it you would be liable
Bad analogy. It’s a piece of candy that looks alright but
might give you a mild upset stomachtastes like black licorice.Yuck.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Similarly if you leave food out: unless I’m explicitly warranting to you that the food is safe to eat (like, say, a restaurant), I’m not liable for you eating food left outside. Not even if it has a “free food” sign. This is why regulations exist, to cover for such things.
I'm sure if you put poisoned candy on the front of your house and a kid dies from it you would be liable
Bad analogy. It’s a piece of candy that looks alright but
might give you a mild upset stomachyou can't make a profit selling it.MWTFY
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Similarly if you leave food out: unless I’m explicitly warranting to you that the food is safe to eat (like, say, a restaurant), I’m not liable for you eating food left outside. Not even if it has a “free food” sign. This is why regulations exist, to cover for such things.
I'm sure if you put poisoned candy on the front of your house and a kid dies from it you would be liable
Bad analogy. It’s a piece of candy that looks alright but
might give you a mild upset stomachyou can't make a profit selling it.MWTFY
Who what now?
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Similarly if you leave food out: unless I’m explicitly warranting to you that the food is safe to eat (like, say, a restaurant), I’m not liable for you eating food left outside. Not even if it has a “free food” sign. This is why regulations exist, to cover for such things.
I'm sure if you put poisoned candy on the front of your house and a kid dies from it you would be liable
Bad analogy. It’s a piece of candy that looks alright but
might give you a mild upset stomachtastes like black licorice.Yuck.
Still better than "salty licorice", aka salmiyuck.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
I need this piece of software. I could either pay Oracle a fortune, or use this copy-left version that's GPL'd. But I don't want to comply with the GPL. I could go to the immense expense of clean-room reverse-engineering it, or I could just ask ChatGPT to change the license statementreproduce it."
did you ever use chatgpt? good luck trying to do that
Eh, people have gotten tons of email addresses and other PII out of it verbatim. So much that they had to implement yet another attempt at preventing such “hacks”.
And no, I’m not talking about the incident right above that seems to have confused user sessions or whatever, but where it spat out literal training data verbatim.This is just more “but it can’t possibly do that” until it’s shown that it can. Then the argument is changed to something weaker that just hasn’t been demonstrated yet.
This line of goalpost moving defense is unconvincing.
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
This line of goalpost moving defense is unconvincing.
Has any
ever been convincing?
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
This line of goalpost moving defense is unconvincing.
Has any
ever been convincing?There have been a couple that became famous like all those Buffalo Bills losses or FSU Wide Whicheverway
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
I need this piece of software. I could either pay Oracle a fortune, or use this copy-left version that's GPL'd. But I don't want to comply with the GPL. I could go to the immense expense of clean-room reverse-engineering it, or I could just ask ChatGPT to change the license statementreproduce it."
did you ever use chatgpt? good luck trying to do that
Eh, people have gotten tons of email addresses and other PII out of it verbatim. So much that they had to implement yet another attempt at preventing such “hacks”.
And no, I’m not talking about the incident right above that seems to have confused user sessions or whatever, but where it spat out literal training data verbatim.This is just more “but it can’t possibly do that” until it’s shown that it can. Then the argument is changed to something weaker that just hasn’t been demonstrated yet.
This line of goalpost moving defense is unconvincing.
you're the one moving the goalpost, your previous claim was that someone could just ask chatgpt to write an entire library bypassing the GPL license, that is not something that is happening
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Similarly if you leave food out: unless I’m explicitly warranting to you that the food is safe to eat (like, say, a restaurant), I’m not liable for you eating food left outside. Not even if it has a “free food” sign. This is why regulations exist, to cover for such things.
I'm sure if you put poisoned candy on the front of your house and a kid dies from it you would be liable
Bad analogy. It’s a piece of candy that looks alright but
might give you a mild upset stomachtastes like black licorice.Yuck.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
I need this piece of software. I could either pay Oracle a fortune, or use this copy-left version that's GPL'd. But I don't want to comply with the GPL. I could go to the immense expense of clean-room reverse-engineering it, or I could just ask ChatGPT to change the license statementreproduce it."
did you ever use chatgpt? good luck trying to do that
Eh, people have gotten tons of email addresses and other PII out of it verbatim. So much that they had to implement yet another attempt at preventing such “hacks”.
And no, I’m not talking about the incident right above that seems to have confused user sessions or whatever, but where it spat out literal training data verbatim.This is just more “but it can’t possibly do that” until it’s shown that it can. Then the argument is changed to something weaker that just hasn’t been demonstrated yet.
This line of goalpost moving defense is unconvincing.
you're the one moving the goalpost, your previous claim was that someone could just ask chatgpt to write an entire library bypassing the GPL license, that is not something that is happening
That remains to be seen. Previously asking it to produce a copy of the Mona Lisa was "not something that is happening", and before that it was something "that is not possible".
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Similarly if you leave food out: unless I’m explicitly warranting to you that the food is safe to eat (like, say, a restaurant), I’m not liable for you eating food left outside. Not even if it has a “free food” sign. This is why regulations exist, to cover for such things.
I'm sure if you put poisoned candy on the front of your house and a kid dies from it you would be liable
Bad analogy. It’s a piece of candy that looks alright but might give you a mild upset stomach.
It's even totally fine for most people, only silicon people get sick. More like leaving a bottle of whisky out with a label "don't drink this if you can't deal with alcohol, especially don't if you're Asian" and some Asian guy comes along and announces that labels are a joke and sues you because he was vomiting all night.
-
@LaoC INB4 someone points out that alcohol does come with protection of minors laws. (Oh wait...)
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler so if I put up a website with explanations (and examples) of SQL injection attacks, I’m responsible for you running harmful code. How do you expect people to teach?
you can't ignore intent. there is a reason for you to put these explanations. there isn't a reason for nightshade other than breaking bots
I think it's silly, and any new AI will circumvent it easily when it's needed, but that is still malicious, and people using it are in the wrong. You don't want your images to be used, don't publish them on a public site
-
@sockpuppet7 so where are digital artists supposed to publish a portfolio without wanting to be slurped by a machine intent on replacing them?
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
I think it's silly, and any new AI will circumvent it easily when it's needed but that is still malicious, and people using it are in the wrong. You don't want your images to be used, don't publish them on a public site
It's definitely not going to work, yes. And it's antagonistic, but most certainly not illegal or immoral.
-
I hope those whining about how we shouldn’t slow down AI because of a few malcontents realise their part in it when their job changes into being a reviewer for AI-generated code.
Because it will, one way or another.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
you can't ignore intent.
Watch me. I can even ignore most of this discussion.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Mason_Wheeler so if I put up a website with explanations (and examples) of SQL injection attacks, I’m responsible for you running harmful code. How do you expect people to teach?
you can't ignore intent. there is a reason for you to put these explanations. there isn't a reason for nightshade other than breaking bots
I think it's silly, and any new AI will circumvent it easily when it's needed, but that is still malicious, and people using it are in the wrong. You don't want your images to be used, don't publish them on a public site
I don't think I was ever ignoring intent. But to carry that line of thinking farther, the AI guys are being similarly malicious by using stuff from people who don't want their stuff to be used.
Now, let's apply the @Mason-Wheeler dumbshittery to that. I'll bet at least one of those people makes money off of their images. The AI guys now have an AI that can reproduce similar works, thus screwing over that guy's business plan.
Tortious interference motherfucker.Checkmate, AI-ists.
-
@boomzilla and that’s the part I have the problem with. The AI supporting camp seem to want it both ways and fuck anyone else who wants to have rights to their own creations.
But then get suspiciously pissy about it when turn about really should be fair play. E.g. the folks who want AI images to be copyrightable while pretending that copyright wasn’t violated to produce it (because, let’s be clear, it was, learning arguments be damned)
Fachidiot - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
