200fifty

Before the big AI boom, I actually did a project where I used inferkit to generate text for the comedy factor because the unhinged nightmare garbage it spit out was extremely entertaining. I just can't imagine using chat gpt in the same way, it's sooo boring

posts you can hear

ngl his stuff always felt a bit cynical to me, in that it seemed to exist more to say "look, video games can have a deep message!" than it did to just have such a message in the first place. Like it existed more to gesture at the concept of meaningfulness rather than to be meaningful itself.

Anyone can copy it, recreate with it, reproduce with it

Ew... stay away from my content, you creep!

If you think of LLMs as being akin to lossy text compression of a set of text, where the compression artifacts happen to also result in grammatical-looking sentences, the question you eventually end up asking is "why is the compression lossy? What if we had the same thing but it returned text from its database without chewing it up first?" and then you realize that you've come full circle and reinvented search engines

unironically saying "the sharing economy" in the year of our lord 2024 is... certainly a choice

also

God knows we old-timers tried to be cynical about ChatGPT, pedantically insisting that AI was actually just machine learning and that Altman’s new toy was nothing but cheap mimicry. But the rest of the world knew better

idk dude I've talked to the rest of the world about this and most of them actually seem to dislike this technology, it seems like maybe you didn't actually try very hard to be cynical

Well, if this guy's quite confident, then I'm sure it'll all pan out in the end. How hard could symbolic reasoning be, really? Incidentally, I've been in a coma since 1970

The copyright clause in the US constitution (1789) also frames it in terms of granting rights to authors to "promote the progress of ... useful arts". Strictly speaking author protection is not the origin of copyright but also I was snarkily responding to a person who was arguing in favor of AI-training-as-fair-use and implying copyright was 120 years old, not trying to do a detailed explication of the origins of copyright law

I'm sorry for my imprecise wording, I was feeling flippant and I know what I said isn't totally accurate. not a big history person here honestly. I'll try and stick to joke-commenting next time. but also can you just say what you mean instead of darkly hinting.

iirc even though strictly speaking the origin of copyright is not really about author protection, part of the broad-strokes motivation for its existence involved "we need to keep production of new works viable in a world where new copies can be easily produced and undercut the original," which was what I was trying to get at. maybe they picked a bad way to do that idk I'm not here to make excuses for the decisions of 16th-century monarchs

also again I'm not a copyright fan/defender. in particular copyright as currently constituted massively and obviously sucks. I just don't think copyright-in-the-abstract is like the Greatest Moral Evil either, bc I'm not a libertarian. sorry ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

heck yeah I love ~~Physics Jenny Nicholson~~ Angela Collier

I mean, it seems like you're reading my argument as a defense of copyright as a concept. I'm ambivalent on the goodness or badness of copyright law in the abstract. Like a lot of laws, it's probably not the ideal way to fix the issue it was designed to solve, and it comes with (many) issues of its own, but that doesn't necessarily mean we'd be better off if we just got rid of it wholesale and left the rest of society as is. (We would probably be left with excitingly new and different problems.)

As I see it, the actual issue at hand with all of this is that people are exploiting the labor/art/culture of others in order to make a profit for themselves at the expense of the people affected. Sometimes copyright is a tool to facilitate that exploitation, and sometimes it's a tool that protects people from it. To paraphrase Dan Olson, the problem is what people are doing to others, not that the law they're using to do it is called "copyright."

That seems bad but also not super relevant to the point under discussion! Unless your point is that it's bad when a cultural commons is exploited for business profits -- in which case, I agree, but, well...