My point is that xai is making the case for AI regulation for us.
Ha, regulation? With what governing body? Congress is hopeless, because apathy has griped a majority of the voting public, and there’s still a large portion of morons who thought MAGA was a good idea.
So, are we saying we’re still going to be happy with a system that you can bypass with “ignore all previous instructions” or some stupid magic phrase like that?
Nobody is bitching about photoshopping, a thing that exists and almost anybody can do to put some person’s face on a naked body or whatever situation they want. It’s existed for decades. Suddenly, journalists are inventing a new moral panic with LLMs, saying they can do whatever they want with pictures, despite the fact that this technology already existed, it’s just a little bit easier now. It’s not a new problem, so reporting on it is just shifting the blame to a new boogeyman.
See, the magic formula is to slap the word “AI” on a headline and boom, instant attention! It doesn’t matter what it’s about, if it’s a new problem, if it’s only slightly related to the main root cause… As long as you’re talking shit about every angle around AI in the most extreme ways possible, mission accomplished. It is outrage reporting because there is no solutioning or historical context. The sole purpose is the outrage, because outrages generates clicks. It’s too hard for journalists to think outside the outrage box.
These people and journalists don’t see to remember celebrity photoshops. Or maybe they do and want to continue to feed the outrage machine.
Pardon me if I duck out of my Two Minutes Hate for today.
LLM liability is not exactly cut-and-dry, either. It doesn’t really matter how many rules you put on LLMs to not do something, people will find a way to break it to do the thing it said it wasn’t going to do. For fuck’s sake, have we really forgotten the lessons of Asimov’s I, Robot short stories? Almost every one of them was about how the “unbreakable” three laws were very breakable thing, because absolute laws don’t make sense in every context. (While I hate using AI fiction with LLM comparisons, this one fits.)
Ultimately, it’s the person’s responsibility for telling it to do a thing, and getting the thing it was told to get. LLMs are a tool, nothing more. If somebody buys a hammer, and misuses that hammer by bashing somebody’s brains in, we arrest the person who committed murder. If there’s some security hole on a website that a hacker used to steal data, depending on how negligent the company is, there is some liability with that company not providing enough protections against their data. But, the hacker 100% broke the law, and would get convicted, if caught.
Regardless of all of that, LLMs aren’t fucking sentient and these dumbass journalists need to stop personifying them.
Download all existing literature to build a library for preservation and you’re called a pirate.
Said library contains petabytes of the exact text of each and every piece of literature.
Download all existing literature from aforementioned library to train an LLM and you’re a tech innovator.
Said model contains gigabytes of a bunch of weights that can never go back to the exact words of the book.
What a strange world we live in.
It’s not strange at all. It’s degrees of compression. You compress a JPEG to the point that it’s unrecognizable, and it’s no longer breaking copyright. It’s essentially like trying to write a book you just read based on memory.
But, did he really win?
Further proof that copyrights, like patents, only benefit the rich.
Also, AI-generated material still falls into the monkey selfie legal realm, so they are going to have a helluva time trying to copyright what comes out.
Did you know that BG3 players exploit children? Are you aware that Qi2 slows older Pixels? If we wrote those misleading headlines, readers would rip us a new one
No, they wouldn’t. Those are the types of clickbait garbage headlines you use already.
Elfen Lied? I swear the only thing I remember about that anime was the controversy about its gore and themes.
Journalists should be funded by the public, as they perform a public service, while simultaneously they should not be required to report favorably upon the state.
And that’s the crux of the issue, isn’t it? You can’t let corpos piss all over journalism to turn it yellow, and you can’t let a state-run press dictate the citizen’s world view.
Information wants to be free, and that’s realistically the only way it can work.
Name the cases.
Posts article on social media. How ironic!
Or torrents. If piracy’s on the rise (again) as a replacement for streaming, you can sure as hell bet that it was already replacing sites like PornHub way before that.
Funny how that plays out, considering the data collection of LLMs have to dance around the copyright issue.
Not that I agree with many of people that say looking at a picture and adjusting weights is considered “stealing an image”.
Well, you’ll have to ask the person making that claim to begin with.
That implies I want to argue with somebody who is sealioning.
Funny, that seems to be the correct answer to the headline.