99
submitted 10 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/technology@beehaw.org
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] lol3droflxp@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

If it was a compression algorithm then it would be insanely efficient and that’d be the big thing about it. The simple fact is that they aren’t able to reproduce their exact training data so no, they aren’t storing it in a highly compressed form.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think there's a lot of Dunning–Kruger here.

The simple fact is that they aren’t able to reproduce their exact training data so no, they aren’t storing it in a highly compressed form.

See: jpeg analogy. You've described here lossy compression not something that is categorically different than compression. Perhaps the AI models are VERY lossy. But that doesn't mean it is original or creative.

But the reality is, we largely do not know how these chatbots work. They are black boxes even to the researchers themselves. That's just how neural networks are. But the thing I know is they are not themselves creative. All they can do is follow weights to reproduce the things human classifiers evaluated as subjectively "good" over the things they subjectively evaluated as "bad". All the creativity happened in the training process -- the inputs and the testing. All of the apparent creativity outputted is a product of the humans involved in training and testing the model, not the model itself. The actual creative force is somewhere far away.

[-] lol3droflxp@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

I see a lot of Dunning Kruger here as well. The fact is that you can generate novel images/texts/whatever with these tools. They may mostly suck but they’re still novel so they can be copyrighted by whoever used these tools to create them.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Even if I grant your premise that their produce is novel -- I don't, that is fundamentally not how they work -- the copyright would be held by the bot in that case, not the person who used it.

No more than a person who commissions a painting has copyright for the work. That's not how creativity, LLMs, nor copyright law works.

[-] lol3droflxp@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

The LLM is a tool. It’s like granting copyright to a paintbrush.

[-] admiralteal@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Exactly. Which is how we know that calling what it does inherently creative/novel is absurd and must be wrong. Glad you came around.

[-] lol3droflxp@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

Kind of a big jump

this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2023
99 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37573 readers
264 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS