ungut

The metric for review quality here seems to be: another AI likes it and three journal editors like it. Should be kept in mind...

LMAO, you mean he learned to install Signal and turn on disappearing messages after all of his chat messages, obviously implying corrupt political practices, were read in a special government committee? The guy doesn't even know what DHCP is, "I'm sure". I almost feel bad that company is getting traffic from HN. Kurz is such a disgusting little worm.

That's not an LLM (keyword:Language). That's a transformer that you've forced to produce deterministic output... Kind of cool, but... Doesn't really prove any point.

Hilarious, I have the exact opposite experience. Especially mid-tier players will do anything to win. Cheese strats vs 2 hour opponents, public flame wars, reclaiming your buildings to steal your metal, etc. I enjoy BAR a lot, but as many RTS communities, it also has problems with sweaty, ragey, try-hard teenagers.

Edit: Just realised I might've fallen for the satire--thats on me.

You are kind of right, but you also did not look very hard. They deleted huge datasets in anticipation of lawsuits, at least that much is known. Of course plaintiffs were unable to depose their internal lawyers (who apparently know why they were frantically deleted) due to 'attourney client priviledge' further refusing to provide any kind of transparency. But yeah, I guess they are they are better at covering their tracks and destroying evidence.

Also, as one more example, I find it hard to believe that their models could generate 'Studio Ghibli' style images without training on the movies. There is no licensing deal between them.

I think the real issues here are two-fold:

Firstly, Copyright is very ill equipped to handle these cases. Just because the model is tuned not to output the exact training data does not mean that compressing mostly-copyrighted datasets into a proprietary model is ethical, fair or /should/ be allowed, simply because they might destroy entire livelihoods. If you take those copyrighted works away you are left with, in OpenAIs own words, a cute little experiment.

Secondly, there is absolutely no transparency. Datasets are easily deleted and its impossible to tell what the models have been trained on, especially after fine tuning. Moreover, only the biggest most successfull works would be easily identifiable without the fine tuned model. Once again, sticking it to the little man.

Doesn't really matter. The incentive structure to steal clearly exists, so why would they even go through the trouble?

Pretty easy to assertain that they don't acquire them legally due to the plethora of evidence and court cases against them. No copyright holder would be sueing them if they knew they sold the works in the first place.

I always wonder why y'all feel the need for these impressive mental gymnastics. You can use the models /and/ think they are trained unethically. Living through the ambiguity without abandoning your ideals completely is a valuable skill these days.

OpenAI plainly admitted that it is impossible not to do so in a House of Lords inquiry. So, presumably there is no way around it to train models. There is just not enough non-copyrighted data out there.

Hmm... I think this could be a case of the organic brain soaking up LLM-isms by the way as it is using these tools intensively. As much as I don't like robot writing, this all seems overly paranoid to me.

Pretty sure you misunderstood this person. I don't think they are advocating for the smashing of looms, rather fear that the movement that could redistribute the benefits of this new technology will go down that dark road again. I also think the reckoning is overdue, maybe it will never come to be. What reckoning? The reckoning for large scale IP theft, scaling up what they call "ghost work", the usage of natural resources and land which power data centers with no return to the people that depend on those and the already existing predatory and disgusting business practices that they have always partaken in. (I assume)

I don't think that is right. There is always a commercial and non commercial duality to art. Artists need money. Many artists hone their craft and make their money by producing commercial products, corporate music or web ads or whatever. I think your prediction is naive; this will take a huge, irreversible toll on art.

The discourse and discussion between Benjamin and Adorno is an interesting tidbit in this context.

Art is not solely an industry.