5 ms·

I'm curious if Gabe over at penny-arcade would be upset if his comics were used in an art class to train a new generation of artists.

by enjo 3y ago

davemp 3y ago
>> If my interlocutor isn't prepared to make any distinctions between a human being and a machine designed to mimic one, I think that I can't meaningfully discuss this with them. I hate that this is the case; it must be seen as a personal failing. I can't do it, though. These models aren't people. They don't know anything. They don't want anything. They don't need anything. I won't privilege it over a person. And I certainly won't privilege its master. Perhaps if you read Gabe's post you could have saved yourself the trouble of making this comment.
- whamlastxmas 3y ago
  Seems lazy to differentiate between types of intelligence without providing any substance as to why you believe one type is more worthy of learning than another and criticizing others for the same laziness
  - romwell 3y ago
    >Seems lazy to differentiate between types of intelligence without providing any substance as to why you believe one type is more worthy of learning than another and criticizing others for the same laziness Seems lazy to call a genAI model "intelligence" without providing any substance as to why one should believe that, but OK. The model isn't an "intelligence" because it's not making a choice about which data you train on and be "inspired by", as people here say. The humans that operate those models do. It's those humans that are exploiting the artists. The AI, as many have said here, is just a tool. Funny how it's "just a tool" when a human uses it to create art, but it's "intelligence" that gets "inspired" by art when a human uses it to create a software product.
    - lokjhfvvv 3y ago
      > The model isn't an "intelligence" because it's not making a choice […] There’s no evidence any of us are making choices either. I don’t think LLMs are intelligences in the way most people mean the word (I think that would be vastly overestimating their abilities) but appealing to choice when it’s so poorly understood — as poorly understood as intelligence, even — is not useful.
      - romwell 3y ago
        >There’s no evidence any of us are making choices either. There is very clear evidence that the humans that operate the computers make the choice on which data the model gets trained on. The discussion is about those choices.
        lokjhfvvv 3y ago
        My point is that there’s no scientific way to demonstrate that one has made a choice vs that outcome being determined (perhaps probabilistically) or being random. We can’t “go back” and do it a different way to demonstrate we’ve actually chosen. We don’t understand what it means to be intelligent in the way people generally mean, and we don’t understand (scientifically) what it means to choose. So we can’t use choice to usefully define intelligence.
        romwell 3y ago
        >My point is that there’s no scientific way to demonstrate that one has made a choice "I'm sorry, your honor, there is no scientific way to demonstrate that I have made a choice to shoot the victim dead. Therefore, I am not guilty!" The way that an AI gets a data set to be trained on is via a choice made by humans. You can't reason your way out of the fact that a choice is made, that it's not made by the AI, and that it has consequences.
        lokjhfvvv 3y ago
        I mean the interesting bit of this conversation is about intelligence not laws. If you want to debate that talk to someone else I guess.
zanellato19 3y ago
Training people and training AI are completely different things, and this tired argument is disingenuous.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

I'm curious if Gabe over at penny-arcade would be upset if his comics were used in an art class to train a new generation of artists.

by enjo 3y ago

I'm curious if Gabe over at penny-arcade would be upset if his comics were used in an art class to train a new generation of artists.

davemp 3y ago

>> If my interlocutor isn't prepared to make any distinctions between a human being and a machine designed to mimic one, I think that I can't meaningfully discuss this with them. I hate that this is the case; it must be seen as a personal failing. I can't do it, though. These models aren't people. They don't know anything. They don't want anything. They don't need anything. I won't privilege it over a person. And I certainly won't privilege its master. Perhaps if you read Gabe's post you could have saved yourself the trouble of making this comment.

whamlastxmas 3y ago
Seems lazy to differentiate between types of intelligence without providing any substance as to why you believe one type is more worthy of learning than another and criticizing others for the same laziness
- romwell 3y ago
  >Seems lazy to differentiate between types of intelligence without providing any substance as to why you believe one type is more worthy of learning than another and criticizing others for the same laziness Seems lazy to call a genAI model "intelligence" without providing any substance as to why one should believe that, but OK. The model isn't an "intelligence" because it's not making a choice about which data you train on and be "inspired by", as people here say. The humans that operate those models do. It's those humans that are exploiting the artists. The AI, as many have said here, is just a tool. Funny how it's "just a tool" when a human uses it to create art, but it's "intelligence" that gets "inspired" by art when a human uses it to create a software product.
  - lokjhfvvv 3y ago
    > The model isn't an "intelligence" because it's not making a choice […] There’s no evidence any of us are making choices either. I don’t think LLMs are intelligences in the way most people mean the word (I think that would be vastly overestimating their abilities) but appealing to choice when it’s so poorly understood — as poorly understood as intelligence, even — is not useful.
    - romwell 3y ago
      >There’s no evidence any of us are making choices either. There is very clear evidence that the humans that operate the computers make the choice on which data the model gets trained on. The discussion is about those choices.
      - lokjhfvvv 3y ago
        My point is that there’s no scientific way to demonstrate that one has made a choice vs that outcome being determined (perhaps probabilistically) or being random. We can’t “go back” and do it a different way to demonstrate we’ve actually chosen. We don’t understand what it means to be intelligent in the way people generally mean, and we don’t understand (scientifically) what it means to choose. So we can’t use choice to usefully define intelligence.
        romwell 3y ago
        >My point is that there’s no scientific way to demonstrate that one has made a choice "I'm sorry, your honor, there is no scientific way to demonstrate that I have made a choice to shoot the victim dead. Therefore, I am not guilty!" The way that an AI gets a data set to be trained on is via a choice made by humans. You can't reason your way out of the fact that a choice is made, that it's not made by the AI, and that it has consequences.
        lokjhfvvv 3y ago
        I mean the interesting bit of this conversation is about intelligence not laws. If you want to debate that talk to someone else I guess.

zanellato19 3y ago

Training people and training AI are completely different things, and this tired argument is disingenuous.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]