Thread

Replies (31)

Jack sees a Shapeshifter and Shapeshifting is about a virtue and character, he’s the guy who came to meet me at the park, with his friends in a spiritual real, like the movie matrix @jack there is a saying trust is earned, and you have to treat your business like yourself
To me, most of this discussion seems to be luddites, artists who's work is profoundly derivative, where they have little value to add other than their ability to use graphic design software, or people who don't even have that but simply wish that they were artistic and don't like that their dreams are now even more unrealistic. So I feel for them, but how bad should I have felt for scribes when the printing press was invented?
Man has a body and consciousness with which he experiences the world, has emotions with which he reacts to it, and finally has a language with which to describe it. Reducing art to gluing together pieces of someone else's text or arranging pixels is close to ignorance. Especially since the phenomenon of art has been dealt with by the greatest thinkers and they have not, as far as I know, come to any consensus.
AI is just another tool, for the time being. Later, we can discuss whether AGI represents a new paradigm. I agree with you—we shouldn’t turn our backs on it. The smartest approach is to embrace and adapt to it; otherwise, we risk looking like those who once branded technological advances as witchcraft centuries ago 🧙🪄🤣
I am faster than the computer and the human, Like, for example, just by glimpse of a look at a picture of trinity kissing me , but we are humans were meant to be physical, because because it feeds the brain on a certain level, though, another hand when men are physical just with anyone, they become violent, ignorance, defiant, and so on
But it’s when they project to people like most people do you know what is right and wrong what is the projection of a healthy relationship have healthy, sexual relationship is like, pretending you know say you don’t need bigger boobs you need to read more more books while you sticking your dick in anybody’s titties
I don’t even wanna have this discussion, but what I’m just trying to say, is that false profit? Like a pretends to be the shepherd and I’m not talking about you well, what other people who come and tell me how to look at yourself
It’s like everybody wants to know the original, Like how people want to know God, but then when Jesus Christ came, and did Godly stuff people said, how dare you, because people have this illusion of how it should be and how it should look like
If you buy that a violation of copyright is stealing, then 1) even cases where a human artist created a fundamentally new work but none the less “copied” the original work, it was considered copyright infringement. “Rogers v. Koons”. 2) The infrastructure of AI requires “copying” the work into their database for learning. This copy is as a fact distributing the work without permission. 3) All techniques of AI are fundamentally “pattern matching” through math where the algorithms and their cost functions attempt to minimize the error of reproducing the pattern. Which is a fancy way of “copying”. 4) As a practical matter if creators are not able to enforce their copyrights by excluding others from copying and distributing their works without their permission they will not have an incentive to produce those works, if everyone goes to ChatGPT for a cake recipe, many of the recipe websites they scrapped from will not get their ad impressions and won’t be able to pay their server architecture, eventually they will close shop. Which will benefit the first movers OpenAI, Google, Microsoft, etc who have already copied the corpus of the web used in these AI implementations. I think creators, authors, and artists have a legitimate complaint. They should be able to extract payment from a license to use their works. Like they would if anyone else was going to create a derivative work from their efforts. If Sampling a baseline for use in your music even if you modify it is a violation of copyright, then it should be atleast as restricted as generating a model artifact that can reproduce your bass line with any transformations requested.
Its not stealing in a statist sense, its just very disrespectful to the artist, if done without their permission. And everybody knows that they would not give permission. Ergo it is a gold mine, based almost entirely on disrespect. And like every new mine, its a gray area in law, giving companies more freedom than they have in older, already regulated gold mines. Same also applies to code generation. One of the many reasons why I moved away from Github.. Btw regarding stealing: in a naturalist viewpoint we do not own things absolutely, not even our body. Owning is an abspraction of respect. You can only "own" things, if other humans respect you, either because of fear (like in our so-called modern societies) or because you showed that you actually deserve what you dare to "own". Now if we go back to KI: who "owns" the output of the KI? Since its entirely based on disrespect: nobody. But that certainly will change when the KI actually becomes AI.