|
Top-level
well eventually they could ban ordinary computers in public hands. but what they're attacking first is: distributing the weights from large trainings run producing nets with >10billion parameters. It would kill opensourced AI. I'm running "13b" models now. They use fearmongering- "an uncensored 13b model can tell you how to make a bioweapon" but the info is online already and you need $100m's equipment (regulated already) 270 days to fix public opinion 5 comments
AI opponents say AI is just compression . in some ways it is, but at such extreme levels, to me it's qualitatively different. stable diffusion = 2billion images -> 4gb , just 2 bytes per image gen. video shows it really must be applying learned rules,way beyond 'collage'. it gets hands wrong because its generating (with mistakes), not cut-pasting compressed source. i am sensitive to the artists concerns but if they acheive regulatory capture of AI models, the result is that Disney will have image & video generators trained on 100 years of IP whilst individual artists are left behind. gen AI doesn't obsolete artistic skill. you still need design sense to use them well. real artists will be able to storyboard their own generated films etc. I want everyone to have these abilities on their own PC  Right you are. Whatever harms AI may cause will only be amplified if megacorporations can use it and the rest of us can't. |
Gregory's Server
@walter4096 @chrisisgr8
Lovely. The idiot politicians are once again trying to make math illegal.
Yeah, AI has a serious copyright issue, namely that using it to generate copyrightable works for you will eventually get you sued. “This is totally not a derivative work; look how many if statements I laundered it through” isn't gonna fly in court. No need to make AI illegal over copyright; infringing copyright with it is already illegal.