I didn’t see a notification for your reply!

I think of it this way — at some point it surprised me that Microsoft doesn’t claim ownership in some way to the output of Microsoft Word. I think if “word processing” didn’t exist until this point in history there’s no way you’d be able to just write down whatever you want, what if you copied the works of recently-deceased beloved poet Maya Angelou? Think of the estate? I heard people were writing down the lyrics of Taylor Swift’s latest album and printing off hundreds of copies and sharing it with people at her concerts. Someone even tried to sell an entire word-for-word copy of Harry and Megan’s last best seller on Amazon that they claimed they “created” since they retyped it themselves until the publisher shut it down.

Obviously all of those things (except my speculation about them claiming any ownership of the output, but look at OpenAI and their tool) don’t happen, but also I think people can write down their favorite poems if they want or print out lyrics because they want to or sit around typing up fan fiction with copyrighted characters all day long, and then there are rules about what they can sell with that obviously derivative content.

If someone spends forever generating AI Vegetas because Vegeta is super cool or they want to see Vegeta in a bowl of soup or whatever, that’s great. They probably can’t sell that stuff because, y’know, it’s pretty clearly something already existing. But if they spend a lot of time creating new novel stuff, I think there’s a view that (for the end user) the underlying technology has never been their concern. That’s kind of how I see it, but I can understand how others might see it differently.

If you make a byte-for-byte copy of something why would you think copyright would not apply? If you listened to the dialogue of a Marvel movie, wrote it down line for line and so happened that the stage directions you wrote were identical to those in the movie, congrats, you’ve worked your way into a direct copy of something that’s under copyright. If you draw three circles by hand in exactly the right way, you might get a Mouse coming after you. If you digitally render those circles in Photoshop, same idea[/concept, yes I know one is a trademark issue].

I love how women and minorities get blamed for failures in industries they barely get to participate in. Get fucked super genius.

There are now 14 competing universes

yeah I did this almost 30 years ago and could recite it from scratch, haven’t made a cable since hs

And 900 hours of AOL

Huh, didn’t even notice Russia wasn’t there. Been a fun Olympics though.

I think it’s just frustration that they can’t take the leap that every trans child has grandparents. It’s like someone realizing that knives are sharp and can hurt their baby and then finally connecting that voting for the sharp-blades-for-infants party could be harmful to people!

Glad someone got it!

….Cherise…

Doubt’ll be the fire of your delight.

had one as a kid, it was terrible even by kid standards. I used to pretend to be a cyborg cop with it and my gray light gun though.

LLMs are conversation engines (hopefully that’s not controversial).

Imagine if Google was a conversation engine instead of a search engine. You could enter your query and it would essentially describe, in conversation to you, the first search result. It would basically be like searching Google and using the “I’m feeling lucky” button all the time.

Google, even in its best days, would be a horrible search engine by the “I’m feeling lucky” standard, assuming you wanted an accurate result and accurate means “the system understood me and provided real information useful to me”. Google instead return(ed)s(?) millions or billions of results in response to your query, and we’ve become accustomed to finding what we want within the first 10 results back or, we tweak the search.

I don’t know if LLMs are really less accurate than a search engine from that standpoint. They “know” many things, but a lot of it needs to be verified. It might not be right on the first or 2nd pass. It might require tweaking your parameters to get better output. It has billions of parameters but regresses to some common mean.

If an LLM returned results back like a search engine instead of a conversation engine, I guess I mean it might return billions of results and probably most of them would be nonsense (but generally easily human-detectable) and you’d probably still get what you want within the first 10 results, or you’d tweak your parameters.

(Accordingly I don’t really see LLMs saving all that much practical time either since they can process data differently and parse requests differently but the need to verify their output means that this method still results in a lot of back and forth that we would have had before. It’s just different.)

(BTW this is exactly how Stable Diffusion and Midjourney work if you think of them as searching the latent space of the model and the prompt as the search query.)

edit: oh look, a troll appeared and immediately disappeared. nothing of value was lost.

I believe it isn’t even easier to use a private DNS or VPN what it’s supposed to be legal on Apple devices.

You’re entitled to your POV but Apple devices (including an Apple TV) can all use private DNS servers. I don’t run a private VPN so I can’t attest to that but of course MacOS can run normal VPN software and custom VPNs. Where are you coming from with this?

What you’re saying is based on the predicate that the system can’t draw concepts it has never seen which is simply untrue. Everything else past that is sophistry.

Edit: also not continuing a conversation with someone who is hostile to the basic rules of logic.

Ok? Hundreds of images of anything isn’t going to necessarily train a model based on billions of images. Have you ever tried to get Stable Diffusion to draw a bow and arrow? Just because it has ever seen something doesn’t mean that it has learned it, nor, more importantly, does that mean that is the way it learned it, since we can see that it can infer many concepts from related concepts- pregnant old women, asian nazis, black george washingtons (NONE OF WHICH actually have ever existed or been photographed)… is unclothed children really more of a leap than any of those?

k

If the system must see something to generate it, and the system can’t generate things that don’t exist, then how is it generating pregnant old women?

The misinformation you’re spreading is related to how it works. A generative AI system will (without prompting away from it) create people with 3 heads, 8 fingers on each hand and multiple legs connecting to each other. Do you think it was trained on that? This argument of “it can generate it, therefore it was trained on it” is ridiculous. You clearly don’t understand how it works.

yeah and/or if he wants to delve deeper into the why’s behind decision making and why we are making the software the way we are making it, he’d probably be better off in product or design.

You’re spreading misinformation and getting called out for it.