Nothing wrong with asking as long as you’re also willing to accept no as an answer. If you’re going to attack them for refusing, then it wasn’t really a question in the first place but rather a demand masked as one.

Also, I’m not sure if this is the correct community to ask this.

Perfect, just in time to stop Russia from meddling with the 2016 election!

Great, now Putin will have absolutely no way whatsoever to spread his propaganda on Facebook!

I really struggle to see the point of these comments. It’s a valid criticism to say it should’ve been done sooner or they should’ve done more, but doing something is better than doing nothing and also better late than never. So what are these commentors trying to achieve here other than applause and upvotes? This is one of the things my autistic brain has a hard time figuring out about social media. Is it just to say what’s popular so people come and pat you on the back?

I’ve yet to see generative AI make an error that a human couldn’t make. Maybe that’s why people seem so hateful of it; they were expecting it to be superhuman but instead it’s too much like us.

Aren’t the grad students similarly trained on books that other people wrote?

That’s a bit like taking issue with the terms jig, spinner, spoon, and fly, and saying you don’t care what some random fishermen call them; to the rest of us, they’re just lures.

AGI is a subcategory of AI. We’ve had AGI systems in science fiction for decades, but we’ve just been calling them AI, which isn’t wrong, but it’s an unspecific term. AI is broad and encompasses everything from predictive text input to AGI and beyond. Every AGI system is also AI, but not everything AI is generally intelligent. ASI (Artificial Super Intelligence) would be an even more specific term, referring to something that is not only artificial and generally intelligent but exceeds human intelligence.

Artificial intelligence

The ability of a computer or other machine to perform those activities that are normally thought to require intelligence.

I don’t see the need to be such a dick about it. The term AGI was coined in the 90’s.

I’m the same way. I’m still on twitter and there’s no such content on my feed except for the occasional post that gets thru. I simply mute those accounts and if it was a retweet I either unfollow the user or turn of retweets from them. It’s not like that’s being forced down my throat. In my experience social media algorithms do listen to the users and when you tell it you’re not interested in something it stops feeding you that.

My hot take on this is that the algorithm is working as intended. I don’t think there’s a secret agenda behind it, and even if there was, it would likely skew left due to the nature of tech companies. The algorithm is simply trying to maximize engagement, and certain kinds of content do that better than others. People might feel like they’re being served content they don’t like, but I think they’re actually drawn to that content despite not liking. It’s like driving past a car wreck; you know it’s not good, and you might see something you wish you didn’t, but you still look.

I actively block content from my feed using word filters. I’ve decided I no longer want to see posts about certain things, so I block them. However, every now and then, a post on one of these topics manages to evade my content filters. And what do I do? I click on it and make a comment, getting myself into hot water again. I know I shouldn’t, and I’ve even taken active steps to stop myself, but I still do.

It is literally artificial intelligence though. Just because chatGPT doesn’t perform as a layperson imagined it would, it doesn’t mean it’s not AI. They just have an unrealistic expectation of what counts as AI along with the common misconception of AI and AGI being the same thing.

A chess playing robot uses artificial intelligence as well. It’s a narrow AI, meaning it can do one thing really well but that doesn’t translate to other things. AGI on the other hand stands for Artificial General Intelligence. Humans are an example of general intelligence meaning that we have the cognitive ability to perform well on several unrelated tasks.

But if you’re view is that you’re not actually adding anything, you’re just doing more of what already exists

That’s not my view.

Okay, assume someone has. Is your art meaningless, then?

No. That’s my point. Art isn’t dead.

I’ll ignore the first part as it doesn’t represent my view.

I don’t think art is dead and I disagree with the implication that AI simply hands you a copy of something somebody else did before. That’s not how generative AI works. There would be nothing generative about that. Instead it studies the prior work of humans, finds patterns and combines these in unique and novel ways. If I ask for a hybrid of Harry Potter and Lord of the rings then obviously its using existing building blocks but the outcome is still something that has not been written before.

I’m an artist myself. I take photographs. I’m under no illusion that all my photos are completely unique, they’re not. I’m well aware that if I had a database of every single picture ever taken, then there would hundreds if not even thousands of photos that are near identical to the ones I’ve taken and are so proud of. That takes zero joy out of my creative process and from the enjoyment other people find in my work. Nobody has seen every photo in the world. My art is not meaningless just because someone did it before me.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

That’s not what I said, though.

Just because you’re using standard materials, it doesn’t mean you can’t combine them in a unique ways and even if every possible sentence has been said before, that doesn’t mean everyone has heard it before too.

The point is that not being allowed to pull from existing content is an impossible standard. Nobody is being as original as they may think they are and even when you truly come up with an idea independently it’s highly likely that you’re not the first to think of that.

Why do you find it such a depressing idea? I face this attitude often when discussing free will as well, which I genuinely don’t believe in either but that has zero effect on my ability to get excited or motivated about things.

It may not be capable of truly understanding anything, but it sure seems to do a better job of it than the vast majority of people I talk to online. I might spend 45 minutes carefully typing out a message explaining my view, only for the other person to completely miss every point I made. With ChatGPT, though, I can speak in broken English, and it’ll repeat back the point I was trying to make much more clearly than I could ever have done myself.

GenAI is a plagiarism engine. That’s really not something that can be defended.

Human artists / writers take influence from others as well. Nobody is creating art in a vacuum and I don’t see generative AI much different from the way humans operate. I’d argue it’s virtually impossible to write a sentence that has not been written before and every new human-created art piece probably has a really close equivalance that has already been done before.

If you get a $1 discount on something it means you’ve got a $1 more to spend on something else. Financially speaking, there is no practical difference to you simply earning an extra $1. Piracy saves people money which means they have more money to spend on something else. It’s not the same kind of profit an AI company makes but the difference is mostly in scale and semantics. With AI companies you’re also paying for the computing power needed to train and run such AI, so it’s not exactly that they’re just serving you pirated content and charging for it.

Pirating movies or games for personal use is for profit. You’re saving money, which is effectively the same thing as earning money. The difference is in scale, not in kind. Just because you as an individual person are causing less harm by pirating content than a major corporation is, it doesn’t mean you’re not still commiting the exact same crime both legally and morally speaking.

Well that’s not just how I see it, that’s how it is.

Also, piracy is illegal. If you think taking copyrighted work of others without permission and training your AI with it should be illegal aswell, then there’s no contradiction there. The people I do take issue with is the ones who see an issue with training AI but not with online piracy.

But piracy saves you money which is effectively the same as making a profit. Also, it’s not just that they’re selling other people’s work for profit. You’re also paying for the insane amount of computing power it takes to train and run the AI plus salaries of the workers etc.