7 ms·

People need to cope with the fact that no thought is original. Even Newton and Leibniz were having the same thoughts at the same time. Get over it.

kelseyfrog 4mo ago
Why post comments then?
- nicman23 4mo ago
  Why post comments then?
  - cafebabbe 4mo ago
    Because some thoughts can, actually, be original ? Or relatively original enough ? Or simply, pertinent and timely ?
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
- analog8374 4mo ago
  to bring attention to certain ideas
- krystalgamer 4mo ago
  reiteration is still important
- voidfunc 4mo ago
  For funsies
- stronglikedan 4mo ago
  same reason we do anything else - sweet, sweet dopamine
saghm 4mo ago
When did the last original thought happen then? Clearly thoughts must have been original at some point, or there wouldn't be any at all
- dooglius 4mo ago
  Technically one of {Newton, Leibniz} was first, but you're missing GP's point
  - saghm 4mo ago
    No, I think I just find it reductive. The fact that some ideas are independently thought by multiple people does not feel like a compelling argument for normalizing copying someone else's work verbatim and trying to pass it off as your own.
- dmoose 4mo ago
  When did the first homo sapiens exist? Ideas like species evolve. Saying there are no original ideas seems to me an attempt to glibly capture something quite fundamental.
  - saghm 4mo ago
    I don't disagree with your premise, but I'd argue that saying "there are no original ideas" in the context of a discussion of plagiarism is needlessly reductive. Even though I think I mostly agree with the author here, I think there are legitimate counterarguments that can be made; equating all of the ways someone can cite or build upon an idea with copying something word-for-word and claiming it's your own is not one of them though.
    - adamzwasserman 4mo ago
      No offense, but you sound like someone who has never built a language model. Anyone who has actually built one understands that there is no copying going on. Just predicting words (tokens actually). The problem is that people's words are MUCH more predictable then they would like to believe. And that truth upsets them. In addition to having created models, I also write books and articles. Probably more than most people commenting here. I have a firm grip on what actual copyright law is and the pros and the cons of it.
LatencyKills 4mo ago
Having an original thought is in no way related to breaking copyright laws. I don't think we should "get over" the fact that modern SOTA models couldn't exist without being trained on protected works.
- IcyWindows 4mo ago
  I'm trained on protected works. Do I need to pay royalties?
  - LatencyKills 4mo ago
    > I'm trained on protected works. That someone, at some point, paid for. I'd like to understand why I can't use a song in one of my videos without permission/payment, but an AI company can train models using that song without having either. I'm not anti-AI. I'd just like to see companies play by the rules everyone else has to follow.
    - JimDabell 4mo ago
      > I'd like to understand why I can't use a song in one of my videos without permission/payment, but an AI company can train models using that song without having either. Because when you say you are “using” the song, what you mean is that you are distributing copies of the song, which is protected by copyright. When AI companies train on the song, the model is learning from it. Outside of the rare cases of memorisation, this is not distributing copies and so copyright doesn’t have any say in the matter. Learning isn’t copying, so copyright doesn’t get involved at all.
      - LatencyKills 4mo ago
        I appreciate your comment, but you answered as if this question had been answered legally. It has not. The New York Times is suing both OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. The Authors Guild is suing OpenAI. Getty Images is suing Stability AI. Disney is suing Midjourney. Universal Music Group and Sony have filed suits against multiple AI companies. > so copyright doesn’t get involved at all. The dozens of ongoing cases that discredit that statement.
brazzy 4mo ago
OK, and the AI labs are open sourcing their frontier models since those are not original either. Right? RIGHT?
throw4847285 4mo ago
I've noticed that AI has caused this narrative to become more popular. "Nothing is original anyway, so why bother?" That's pure cope and you know it. A deep insecurity masked as bold truthtelling.
- falcor84 4mo ago
  I think you're right, the ease in which AI can do task that we previously considered unique to human creativity does force us to further rethink and acknowledge how creativity is in a large part about "remixing" prior works, although of course we've had discourse about this for at least as early as Richard Simon's 1678 "Critical History of the Old Testament", which identified it as being a remix of earlier sources [0]. [0] https://archive.org/details/hisyo00simo/page/n1/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/hisyo00simo/page/n1/mode/2up
ff10 4mo ago
Nono, actually there are no thoughts. Every utterance is just a copy of a previous utterance plus a slight random mutation. (somewhat /s)
adamzwasserman 4mo ago
I submit most of the replies to my original reply as proof that there are no original thoughts.
- nonethewiser 4mo ago
  Should we hold machines to the same standards as humans though?
nonethewiser 4mo ago
Im not sure where I land - is it just information compiled like humans do at scale or is it different? But I am sympathetic to your idea. I think it points to an interesting trend either way. People are less tolerant of machines. Failures of machines are reviled because of their nature, even when the overall problem compared to humans is less. For example, self driving cars. If self driving cars halve traffic deaths from reckless driving but it occasionally mows over a family of four in broad daylight for no apparent reason, society will overwhelmingly reject the technology. Basically, I dont think people will ever be satisfied even if we prove "its just doing the same thing we are." It's going to be held to a higher standard.
- adamzwasserman 4mo ago
  [dead]

kelseyfrog 4mo ago

Why post comments then?

nicman23 4mo ago
Why post comments then?
- cafebabbe 4mo ago
  Because some thoughts can, actually, be original ? Or relatively original enough ? Or simply, pertinent and timely ?
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
analog8374 4mo ago
to bring attention to certain ideas
krystalgamer 4mo ago
reiteration is still important
voidfunc 4mo ago
For funsies
stronglikedan 4mo ago
same reason we do anything else - sweet, sweet dopamine

saghm 4mo ago

When did the last original thought happen then? Clearly thoughts must have been original at some point, or there wouldn't be any at all

dooglius 4mo ago
Technically one of {Newton, Leibniz} was first, but you're missing GP's point
- saghm 4mo ago
  No, I think I just find it reductive. The fact that some ideas are independently thought by multiple people does not feel like a compelling argument for normalizing copying someone else's work verbatim and trying to pass it off as your own.
dmoose 4mo ago
When did the first homo sapiens exist? Ideas like species evolve. Saying there are no original ideas seems to me an attempt to glibly capture something quite fundamental.
- saghm 4mo ago
  I don't disagree with your premise, but I'd argue that saying "there are no original ideas" in the context of a discussion of plagiarism is needlessly reductive. Even though I think I mostly agree with the author here, I think there are legitimate counterarguments that can be made; equating all of the ways someone can cite or build upon an idea with copying something word-for-word and claiming it's your own is not one of them though.
  - adamzwasserman 4mo ago
    No offense, but you sound like someone who has never built a language model. Anyone who has actually built one understands that there is no copying going on. Just predicting words (tokens actually). The problem is that people's words are MUCH more predictable then they would like to believe. And that truth upsets them. In addition to having created models, I also write books and articles. Probably more than most people commenting here. I have a firm grip on what actual copyright law is and the pros and the cons of it.

LatencyKills 4mo ago

Having an original thought is in no way related to breaking copyright laws. I don't think we should "get over" the fact that modern SOTA models couldn't exist without being trained on protected works.

IcyWindows 4mo ago
I'm trained on protected works. Do I need to pay royalties?
- LatencyKills 4mo ago
  > I'm trained on protected works. That someone, at some point, paid for. I'd like to understand why I can't use a song in one of my videos without permission/payment, but an AI company can train models using that song without having either. I'm not anti-AI. I'd just like to see companies play by the rules everyone else has to follow.
  - JimDabell 4mo ago
    > I'd like to understand why I can't use a song in one of my videos without permission/payment, but an AI company can train models using that song without having either. Because when you say you are “using” the song, what you mean is that you are distributing copies of the song, which is protected by copyright. When AI companies train on the song, the model is learning from it. Outside of the rare cases of memorisation, this is not distributing copies and so copyright doesn’t have any say in the matter. Learning isn’t copying, so copyright doesn’t get involved at all.
    - LatencyKills 4mo ago
      I appreciate your comment, but you answered as if this question had been answered legally. It has not. The New York Times is suing both OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement. The Authors Guild is suing OpenAI. Getty Images is suing Stability AI. Disney is suing Midjourney. Universal Music Group and Sony have filed suits against multiple AI companies. > so copyright doesn’t get involved at all. The dozens of ongoing cases that discredit that statement.

brazzy 4mo ago

OK, and the AI labs are open sourcing their frontier models since those are not original either. Right? RIGHT?

throw4847285 4mo ago

I've noticed that AI has caused this narrative to become more popular. "Nothing is original anyway, so why bother?" That's pure cope and you know it. A deep insecurity masked as bold truthtelling.

falcor84 4mo ago
I think you're right, the ease in which AI can do task that we previously considered unique to human creativity does force us to further rethink and acknowledge how creativity is in a large part about "remixing" prior works, although of course we've had discourse about this for at least as early as Richard Simon's 1678 "Critical History of the Old Testament", which identified it as being a remix of earlier sources [0]. [0] https://archive.org/details/hisyo00simo/page/n1/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/hisyo00simo/page/n1/mode/2up

ff10 4mo ago

Nono, actually there are no thoughts. Every utterance is just a copy of a previous utterance plus a slight random mutation. (somewhat /s)

adamzwasserman 4mo ago

I submit most of the replies to my original reply as proof that there are no original thoughts.

nonethewiser 4mo ago
Should we hold machines to the same standards as humans though?

nonethewiser 4mo ago

Im not sure where I land - is it just information compiled like humans do at scale or is it different? But I am sympathetic to your idea. I think it points to an interesting trend either way. People are less tolerant of machines. Failures of machines are reviled because of their nature, even when the overall problem compared to humans is less. For example, self driving cars. If self driving cars halve traffic deaths from reckless driving but it occasionally mows over a family of four in broad daylight for no apparent reason, society will overwhelmingly reject the technology. Basically, I dont think people will ever be satisfied even if we prove "its just doing the same thing we are." It's going to be held to a higher standard.

adamzwasserman 4mo ago
[dead]