Almost like Amazon should have some responsibility in properly vetting their sellers. This isn't the only case of bad quality bootlegs on Amazon. They have no decent incentive to fix it if they are making more money from it. It doesn't help when the blame is filtered through the smokescreen of ephemeral merchants.
The wording of every single article has such an anti AI slant, and I feel the propaganda really working this past half year. Still nobody cares about advertising companies, but LLMs are the devil.
Existing datasets still exist. The bigger focus is in crossing modalities and refining content.
Why is the negative focus always on the tech and not the political system that actually makes it a possible negative for people?
I swear, most of the people with heavy opinions don't even know half of how the machines work or what they are doing.
again, the issue isn't the technology, but the system that forces every technological development into functioning "in the name of increased profits for a tiny few."
that has been an issue for the fifty years prior to LLMs, and will continue to be the main issue after.
removing LLMs or other AI will not fix the issue. why is it constantly framed as if it would?
we should be demanding the system adjust for the productivity increases we've already seen, as well to what we expect in the near future. the system should make every advancement a boon for the general populace, not the obscenely wealthy few.
even the fears of propaganda. the wealthy can already afford to manipulate public discourse beyond the general public's ability to keep up. the bigger issue is in plain sight, but is still being largely ignored for the slant that "AI is the problem."
It's almost like we need an entirely new legal framework to ensure the non wealthy a standard of living while being continuously devalued over time by me technological developments. Artists already sell their souls to survive in this "market."
Just millions? I guess the billions come from creating a proprietary software development engine that is uniquely tied to their own market, which invests into encouraging children into the ecosystem that traps anyone with success in a market which ultimately takes 93% of earnings for roblox.
Exploitative. Unethical. Feeding in the technological ignorance of the masses and political leaders.
Music publishers sue happy in the face of any new technological development? You don't say.
If an intern gives you some song lyrics on demand, do they sue the parents?
Do we develop all future A.I. Technology only when it can completely eschew copyrighted material from their comprehension?
"I am sorry, I'm not allowed to refer to the brand name you are brandishing. Please buy our brand allowance package #35 for any action or communication regarding this brand content. "
I dream of a future when we think of the benefit of humanity over the maintenance of our owners' authoritarian control.
Reality.
I mean it's not actual "full self drive" to begin with. It's a lame impersonation of more advanced self driving vehicles that aren't even being sold yet. That doesn't matter to the elon fans though.
The lie that actually gets people killed, while also tainting the overall perception of autonomous vehicles. Thanks elon.
... Basically the day it was created.
I swear the actual gain from prime is virtually indecipherable. The less you understand it, the less you can actually complain about what you are paying for.
It also does not boost my confidence when they use deceptive patterns to sneak you back into prime, or keep you from leaving.
The average person doesn't give a hoot though, and will get actively upset at you for pointing out deceptive patterns when it's a brand they use, so I we can probably expect things to get worse whenever physically possible.
Funny I don't see much talk in this thread about Francois Chollet's abstraction and reasoning corpus, which is emphasised in the article. It's a really neat take on how to understand the ability of thought.
A couple things that stick out to me about gpt4 and the like are the lack of understanding in the realms that require multimodal interpretations, the inability to break down word and letter relationships due to tokenization, lack of true emotional ability, and similarity to the "leap before you look" aspect of our own subconscious ability to pull words out of our own ass. Imagine if you could only say the first thing that comes to mind without ever thinking or correcting before letting the words out.
I'm curious about what things will look like after solving those first couple problems, but there's even more to figure out after that.
Going by recent work I enjoy from Earl K. Miller, we seem to have oscillatory cycles of thought which are directed by wavelengths in a higher dimensional representational space. This might explain how we predict and react, as well as hold a thought to bridge certain concepts together.
I wonder if this aspect could be properly reconstructed in a model, or from functions built around concepts like the "tree of thought" paper.
It's really interesting comparing organic and artificial methods and abilities to process or create information.
Hey shill here. I also shill for other artistic tools like cameras and CGI. Got a lot of hate back when CGI and digital painting were still controversial. Don't know if such "art" will ever truly be accepted by the art police, i guess AI art tools will join them.
Personally I think independent artists can accomplish much more with tools like these than they could just pretending to be a Disney art director with all the pretend Disney interns not actually helping their vision come to life.
I like when art isn't monopolized by the ones with all the money. I also like when we allow open models that aren't proprietary adobe subscriptions.
Also this thread is hilarious. OpenAI are literally asking to be regulated by more democratic external bodies. They've been making every effort one could expect on this front, but I guess that doesn't matter?
It's like when Altman went to the senate and said "regulate larger and more capable models like we will have, but don't stifle and limit open source and smaller startups"
And everyone started bashing openAI for encouraging regulation of open source.
If I'm a brain dead tech bro, at least I have decades of familiarity with art, copywrite woes, and AI/ML. Back in school I was just called a nerd, but I guess that framing doesn't really work these days so i need to be compared to frat bro adventure capitalists every time I have an opinion that's not negative to new technologies.
Antitrust was just a nice idea. It's kinda dead. Will remain dead unless we can purge corruption from politics. For some reason, most politicians seem averse to this idea.
Luckily the party driven and heavily influential political roles are filled with diverse representatives from every walk of life and aren't largely built around the same support circles and ideals that have already been entrenched for generations. With millions of citizens, its normal for the same handful of families to remain in power, with the exception of some rich celebrities who can win the popularity polls.
Everything is fine.
As long as the rich can get more money. That's what is most important.
Too much musk news. Had a dream less than an hour ago where i ended up in a car with elon. He started peacocking and got violent when i brought up zuck.
While it was a neat experience to beat up musk in a dream, id rather not have him in my dreams.
We already know we aren't allowed to use someone's likeness without permission. The issue is companies like Disney who will end up legally owning all of the likenesses. Especially if we continue to beef up copyright, they will end up owning likeness to all artistic styles. Grimes did it right with the voice tech, but even that doesn't fix the real issue.
We need to fix the system we live in that is so terrible that it makes amazing new technology seem like a negative to the larger populace. We could destroy the loom to keep people employed, but that doesn't actually help anyone. It's no coincidence that we have record profits at the same time as unreasonable price hikes. That people are overworked and struggling after fifty years of unimaginable productivity growth.
There's a mountain of propaganda defending the rich as well. If I try to search for views critical of the ones that plundered the entire world, I get bombarded with excuses and defenses for indefensible behaviors. Why are people freaking out about the tech reaching Utopian levels when the real issue is keeping the thieves from stealing every gain we have as a society?
Need a legal framework that ensures a likeness can only be used with a subscription fee.
I mean, we aren't allowed to own most of the stuff we buy now, should they be allowed to own us?
Yes, please keep fighting to ensure we are locked to adobe's rent seeking model with no open alternatives.
The best thing for the art world is to make sure independent and poorer artists have no available competitive tools as we head into an inevitably advanced future. Where would we be without our intellectual landlords in such a future. The ones who can afford proprietary datasets are the only ones who deserve to prosper.
Right?
Yeah actually I don't like that. Also as an artist with degrading digital dexterity, such a powerful medium that doesn't rely on hours of causing my hands more damage is really cool.
Can't wait to get holodeck style creative experiences. I will enjoy creating such things as well, if it's not exclusively available through corporately aligned rent systems.
"The surprising thing we find is that, essentially, you can use the largest model to help you automatically design the smaller ones"
Hey, how do we get a clickbait title out of this?
I've been ranting about this since 2016.
Having consumer trust in developing AI vehicles is hard enough without this asshole's ego and lies muddying the water.
Humanity is already plunging into dystopia without AI. Changing A.I. Doesn't matter as much as changing our economic system, and flaunting of wealth and power to ensure it only gets worse. A.I. Just makes it more immediate and obvious.
i'm still in the melanie mitchell school of thought. if we created an A.I. advanced enough to be an actual threat, it would need the analogous style of information processing that would allow machines to easily interpret instruction. there is no reasonable incentive for it to act outside of our instruction. don't anthropomorphise it with "innate desire to keep living even at the cost of humanity or anything else." we only have that due to evolution. i do not believe in the myth of stupid super-intelligence capable of being an existential threat.
long response,
TLDR: it's not what they're saying, but how they're saying it. while i don't disbelieve the possibility of shitty actors doing shitty things which resulted in these claims, i do disagree with the emphasis used while addressing the issue.
also this is more of an open letter answering your question, so my statements and questions are open and not directed towards you personally.
firstly, I definitely agree with a lot of the article. the person responsible for cops using this technology for arrests needs to be put down hard. i think there needs to be very strict conditions showing how the system mitigates bias before such use is even potentially ethical.
the primary reason i think articles like this earn a lot of friction is that much of the framing has been towards entirely defining their and other people's personalities and lives and actions purely by their demographic. personally i despise the trend, and have grown an appreciation for things like VR socialization for this reason, where you are yourself and what you choose to be. it feels much less likely for others to dismiss your opinion, insult you, or attack you purely due to your demographic.
this type of trend would explain why many would find it credible when "Google AI head Jeff Dean acknowledged that the paper “surveyed valid concerns about LLMs,” but claimed it “ignored too much relevant research.”
frankly, i believe much in how these people are addressing the issue itself encourages "the exacerbation of racism and sexism." which they claim, and i hope believe to be against. i think encouraging people to define themselves and others by demographic above all else is harmful and segregationist. those i am familiar with in the field are very eager to ensure a solution to the problem of bias, without instigating or encouraging a culture focused on people defining themselves purely by their demographic.
note the phrase "they’re either wealthy enough to get out of it, or white enough to get out of it, or male enough to get out of it,”
this is the kind of race/gender-war inciting garbage i'm talking about. just casually slipping "white" and "male" with "wealthy" is probably going to set off many peasants of the demographic. i'm also generally intolerant of the idea that blatant bigotry is A-OK when it's "punching up" against the "bad demographic."
i'm pretty sure every bigot thinks their target is the "bad demographic."
i remember waiting outside of a library as a child, being beaten until my eyes were swollen shut by people i didn't know due to this rhetoric. afterwards they claimed i used a slur and i was the one blamed for the incident. i was a poor child from an abusive and unloving home who just wanted to read a book and escape. i said nothing to these older kids, because i had no ambition to experience the treatment of strangers. i could say a lot for my privileged foster children friends also growing up being neglected and abused on a regular basis. i'm sure they have no issue accepting their privilege. although usually the response to this sarcastic point is to completely erase their personal experience or tragedy by saying "but they probably still had it better because of their demographic." i'll note that personal experience is far too variable to justifiably make such a claim.
"punching up" isn't defensible when it leads to children being attacked for no fault of their own other than the body they were born into. especially when the things that directly encourage this antagonistic mindset do not actually improve anything. there are many other personal anecdotes i could make on the topic, but i think the occurrence itself as i've presented should be obviously indefensible. unless you are a hateful monster.
i guarantee being lumped in with the asshole "elite" families that have come from privilege is a distressing experience for many not-so-privileged members of the demographic. denounced as the evil bad, enemy of progress and good, by the original sin of the body they were born into. regardless of any action, thought, intention or experience they've ever held. the less reasonable actors in the demographic will probably not find a poetic way to voice this dissatisfaction. probably furthering the cycle of shitty experiences by the innocents on either side.
we won't even get into the neurotic requirements of addressing microaggressions.
why can't we deal with the issues of bias and demographics without actively encouraging the exacerbation of racism and sexism? weren't they calling that the existential threat in the article?
again, to say openly to everyone, your experience is not everyone else's experience. your local community and experiences are not always relatable to the experience of everyone else. there is a weirdly high dimensional and abstracted nature to the experiences and interpretations of these concepts. there are billions of individuals, and almost as many different and differently sized groups of every kind. bad actors and shitty people exist on every side, and will take the leeway they are given to be abusive or hateful to whomever they see as "the enemy."
we are all human, we should all define ourselves as human, and work to mitigate the evil that is prejudice and hate without also directly encouraging it. is that really an unreasonable request?
that's my two cents anywho. please don't label me with things i disagree with or find abhorrent purely because you want to defend segregationist rhetoric.
also, fuck the rich.
i hate giving anecdotal evidence, but i wasn't expecting it to be such a black and white change for me personally.
i can draw a clear line between the previous twenty years of my life, and a few years ago.
it's just weirdly amazing to able to have a small thing go wrong and just be like "ah dangit." rather than having a depressive spiral and mourning my own existence for the rest of the day.
not that i don't sometimes have pessimistic thoughts or bad days, it's just not overwhelmingly defining of my every moment.
at the very least, i'm eager to see a lot more research being done. if it is legitimate, and others can have the same change in life experience that i've had, then it's a damn tragedy it hasn't been studied more thoroughly ages ago.
This is the thing I kept shouting when diffusion models took off. People are effectively saying "make it illegal for neural nets to learn from anything creative or productive anywhere in any way"
Because despite the differences in architecture, I think it is parallel.
If the intent and purpose of the tool was to make copies of the work in a way we would consider theft of done by a human, I would understand.
The same way there isn't any legal protection on neural nets learning from personal and abstract information to manipulate and predict or control the public, the intended function of the tool should make it illegal.
But people are too self focused and ignorant to riot enmass about that one.
The dialogue should also be in creating a safety net as more and more people lose value in the face of new technology.
But fuck any of that, what if an a.i. learned from a painting I made ten year ago, like every other artists who may have learned from it? Unforgivable.
I don't believe it's reproducing my art, even if asked to do so, and I don't think I'm entitled to anything.
Also copyright has been fucked for decades. It hasn't served the people since long before the Mickey mouse protection act.
Are we talking about data science??
There needs to be strict regulation on models used specifically for user manipulation and advertising. Through statistics, these guys know more about you than you do. That's why it feels like they are listening in.
Can we have more focus and education around data analysis and public influence? Right now the majority of people don't even know there is a battle of knowledge and influence that they are losing.
When they switched the window exiting x button on the "upgrade to windows ten!" Notification to accept the installation rather than just exit the notification.
I'd been exiting that window every day to set up our work computers, as our point of sales solution didn't support the newer version of windows.
My horror when our shop doors open and the screen turns to "updating to windows 10"
We basically lost a day of sales since we had to do thing sans POS.
When I told the owner that I definitely didn't accept the installation, he called Microsoft which told him I must have accepted the installation.
And you are the only voice of reason in this thread.
"Make up shit that makes OpenAI look bad" is like tech article gold right now. The amount of times i am seeing "look what ChatGPT said!!!" As if prompter intention is completely irrelevant to model output.
Objectivity doesn't exist anymore. It's just really popular to talk shit about ai right now.
Like when Altman effectively said "we should only regulate models as big or bigger than ours, we should not regulate small independent or open source models and businesses" to Congress, which was followed by endless articles saying "Sam Altman wants to regulate open source and stamp out smaller competition!"
I have no love for how unopen they've become, but at least align criticisms with reality please.
Think "shopping habits" already includes subconscious thoughts. Advertisers know when you will quit a brand before you do.
Title made me think this was a "sentient a.i." argument, but I'm glad to see it's not. human neuro rights is exactly what I think we need to be thinking about.
We also need a fix for established classes in society. Why have the smallest fraction of the population hoarded almost all of the benefits from humanity's advancements in the past 50 years? It's unconscionable.
not actually reading the article though, because i can't easily read it past the cookie confirmation.
The AI in that song is just used as a tool to emulate the sound of drake's voice. The rest is standard artist composition.
While I don't particularly care for the song, comparing it to doping is not reasonable.
Same with all AI art tools. Actual artists can make reasonable use of these tools to more efficiently convey what they had wanted to convey.
This is just like when cameras were invented. Or people started using digital mediums. Or when people started making 3D art.
Even simple prompt only stuff like midjourney is improving to allow artists more control over the image they are trying to create.
If we end up with a holo-deck style experience where artists can craft entire worlds and details through gesture and dictation as a form of expression, is that still not art?
People's perspective is killing their sense of awe.
While our economic system is grand in ensuring our experience of life doesn't improve, technology has gotten kind of crazy and awesome.
They could release an agi next year, and unless it affected people's work life balance, people would just immediately get used to it and think it's boring.
Will generative AI still kill our sense of awe when video game characters can naturally and accurately respond how you would expect?
I would never get bored of it. The majority of people would find it a boring novelty after a couple days because we are good at getting used to things and people don't want to recognize the fact. We will have full fantastical worlds to explore and people will still find reason to be salty because it's made with the help of evil computers.
I'm personally eager for a life where my recreational experiences aren't defined by companies like Disney. Smaller artists with these powerful tools will be able to create wonderful unique experiences without the ball and chain of media oligarches.
We have more control than we think of our sense of awe.
Maybe it's time for a new perspective on art and industry.
Perhaps instead we could just restructure our epistemically confabulated reality in a way that doesn't inevitably lead to unnecessary conflict due to diverging models that haven't grown the necessary priors to peacefully allow comprehension and the ability exist simultaneously.
breath
We are finally coming to comprehend how our brains work, and how intelligent systems generally work at any scale, in any ecosystem. Subconsciously enacted social systems included.
We're seeing developments that make me extremely optimistic, even if everything else is currently on fire. We just need a few more years without self focused turds blowing up the world.
As always, the problem is our economic system that has funneled every gain and advance to the benefit of the few. The speed of this change will make it impossible to ignore the need for a new system. If it wasn't for AI, we would just boil the frog like always. But let's remember the real issue.
If a free food generating machine is seen as evil for taking jobs, the free food machine wouldn't be the issue. Stop protesting AI, start protesting affluent society. We would still be suffering under them even if we had destroyed the loom.
We going to do an article every time someone uses a loom to make clothing?
The issue is that art currently relies on the whims of people who control the money.
We need a new socioeconomic system with a more fair wealth distribution, so common people can afford choose to support artists that they want to support.
This whole thread is absurd.
Chatgpt has a form of intelligence depending on your definition of intelligence. It may also be considered conscious in a very alien and undeveloped way. It is definitely not sentient.
Kind of like having the stochastic word generating part of a brain and nothing else.
You can still shape it into something capable of intelligent and directed activity.
People are really bad at accepting the level of nuance necessary for this topic.
It is useful and fantastic for what it already is. People are just really bad at understanding what it is.
Why would we be wiped out if they were properly instructed to be symbiotic to our species? This implies absolutele failure at mechanistic interpretability and alignment at every stage. I don't think we'll succeed in creating the existential viable intelligence without crossing that hurdle.
Most current problems already happen without a.i. and the machines will get better, we will not. From spam to vehicles, a.i. will be the solution, not the problem. I do think we should prioritize on dealing with the current issues, but I don't think they are unscalable by any means.
Why? And why do you think intelligence of that level still couldn't handle the concept of context? Either it's capable of analogical thinking, or it isn't an existential threat to begin with. RLHF doesn't get us super intelligence.
Again this assumes we've completely failed development, in which case environmental collapse will kill us anyway.
Hey a real problem. Consolidation of power is already an issue without A.I. It is extremely important we figure out how to control our own political and corporate leaders. A.I. is just another tool for them to fuck us, but A.I. isn't the actual problem here.
AI or no AI, the solution needs to be social restructuring. People underestimate the amount society can actively change, because the current system is a self sustaining set of bubbles that have naturally grown resilient to perturbations.
The few people who actually care to solve the world's problems are figuring out how our current systems inevitably fail, and how to avoid these outcomes.
However, the best bet for restructuring would be a distributed intelligent agent system. I could get into recent papers on confirmation bias, and the confabulatory nature of thought, on the personal level, group level, and society level.
Turns out we are too good at going with the flow, even when the structure we are standing on is built over highly entrenched vestigial confabulations that no longer help.
Words, concepts, and meanings change heavily depending on the model interpreting them. The more divergent, the more difficulty in bridging this communication gap.
a distributed intelligent system could not only enable a complete social restructuring with autonomy and altruism both guaranteed, but with an overarching connection between the different models at every scale, capable of properly interpreting the different views, and conveying them more accurately than we could have ever managed with model projection and the empathy barrier.
Exactly what I keep saying when people start blaming the tools being used for automation. Productivity is up and up and up, but none of that has been given back to the workers in the past fifty years. If I try to find dialogue on that issue, I run into a mountain of blatant propaganda defending the continued robbery of the middle and lower classes.
Not to mention the reason we can all fuck around with llama models despite the fact. Props to yann and other meta AI researchers. Also eager to see future jepa stuff.
If only openAI was so open.
i laughed pretty hard when south park did their chatgpt episode. they captured the school response accurately with the shaman doing whatever he wanted, in order to find content "created by AI."
Can someone be sacked for these stupid fear mongering presentations of what should be fairly banal topics? If there was actual reason to worry, we would point out the constant remarkable disasters which should discourage you.