Chozo

joined 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 minutes ago

I feel that this logic follows a common misconception of generative AI. Its output isn't made from the training data. It will take inspiration from it, but it doesn't just mix-and-match samples from the training materials. GenAI uses metadata that it builds based on that training data, but the data, itself, isn't directly referenced during generation.

The way AI generates content isn't like when Vanilla Ice sampled Under Pressure; it would be more like if Vanilla Ice had talent and could actually write music, and had accidentally written the same bass line without ever hearing Queen. While unlikely, it's still possible, and I'm sure we've all experienced a similar situation; ie. you open a comment thread to post a joke based on the headline and see the top comment is already the exact same joke you were going to make... You didn't copy the other user, and they didn't copy you, but you both likely share a similar experience that trigger the same associations.

For the same reasons that two different writers can accidentally tell the same story, or two different comedians can write the same joke, two different musicians can write the same melodies if they have shared inspirations. In all of those instances, both parties can create entirely original materials own their own accord, even if they aren't meaningfully unique from each other. The way generative AI works isn't significantly different, which is why this is such a legally-murky situation. If generative AI were more rudimentary and was actually sampling the training data, it would be an open-and-shut copyright infringement case. But, because the materials the AI produces are original creations of its own, we get into this situation where we have to argue over where to draw the line between "inspiration" and "replication".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 hour ago

Thanks for reminding me that I still need to finish this one. It's such a charming game!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Those mailer coupons are the only reason I ever order a pizza delivery anymore. The cost of delivery fees, tips, and the food itself keeps going up and it's becoming harder to justify the purchase unless I'm getting a significant discount somehow.

I used to order pizza fairly frequently, too. Like once every 2-3 weeks or so. But it's just so expensive now, I think it's been probably 3 years since I've ordered one.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 hours ago

Nickmercs has always been a piece of shit. I feel like he's only ever stepped up to bat for his friends when they've actually done some heinous shit, so seeing his defense of Doc only further confirms my belief that he did it.

Nickmercs' support is an unexpected canary in this coal mine.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

“The basic point is that [the AI companies’] model requires a vast corpus of sound recordings in order to output synthetic music files that are convincing imitations of human music,” the suits alleged. “Because of their sheer popularity and exposure, the Copyrighted Recordings had to be included within Suno’s training data for Suno’s model to be successful at creating the desired human-sounding outputs.

Nope, there's plenty of other ways for an AI to have created similar notes. Say you have Song A written by Steve. Steve grew up listening to a lot of John, who wrote songs B through Z. Steve spent his childhood listening to and being influenced by John, so when Steve eventually grows up to write Song A, it's incredibly possible for it to contain elements from songs B through Z. So if an AI trains off of Steve it's going to consequently pick up whatever habits Steve learned from John.

Just like how you picked up some habits from your parents, which they picked up from their parents... etc. You could develop a habit that started with an ancestor you've never met; who are you copying?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 hours ago

By design. The cruelty is the point.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

I think Shadow is referring to Palworld's similarities to Pokemon. There had been a lot of tension over whether or not Nintendo would try to sue the Palworld dev, so it stands to reason that selling something so contentious on Nintendo's own platform might be a bit awkward.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

There's no "what if", Satanic Panic never went away. If anything, it's being boosted by social media.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 hours ago

I'd imagine that some of the tech the controller users is licensed from other rights holders, so Google can't just open source it.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I'm going to assume that it's more than just an allegation and that it's sufficiently substantiated if they're willing to publicly cut ties with him like this. Their statement says that they confirmed the events with the involved parties, so I imagine they're confident in their decision.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 hours ago

The comment you replied to says literally the opposite of the thing you claim it says. There will be more precipitation, not less.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

@[email protected] I mean, what else would you expect people to post? Any new thing you learn is something you're discovering the existence of for the first time.

What sort of posts would you recommend? "TIL how to change a tire" with a link to a tutorial video? Not being sarcastic, genuinely asking, because I feel like what you're suggesting would exclude almost anything from being posted, unless I'm misunderstanding you (which I probably am).

E: I just took a look at some of the other recent posts, and I see what you mean. There's a lot of low-effort threads that aren't really doing much to encourage discussion.

 

Roko's basilisk is a thought experiment which states that an otherwise benevolent artificial superintelligence (AI) in the future would be incentivized to create a virtual reality simulation to torture anyone who knew of its potential existence but did not directly contribute to its advancement or development, in order to incentivize said advancement.It originated in a 2010 post at discussion board LessWrong, a technical forum focused on analytical rational enquiry. The thought experiment's name derives from the poster of the article (Roko) and the basilisk, a mythical creature capable of destroying enemies with its stare.

While the theory was initially dismissed as nothing but conjecture or speculation by many LessWrong users, LessWrong co-founder Eliezer Yudkowsky reported users who panicked upon reading the theory, due to its stipulation that knowing about the theory and its basilisk made one vulnerable to the basilisk itself. This led to discussion of the basilisk on the site being banned for five years. However, these reports were later dismissed as being exaggerations or inconsequential, and the theory itself was dismissed as nonsense, including by Yudkowsky himself. Even after the post's discreditation, it is still used as an example of principles such as Bayesian probability and implicit religion. It is also regarded as a simplified, derivative version of Pascal's wager.

Found out about this after stumbling upon this Kyle Hill video on the subject. It reminds me a little bit of "The Game".

 

Hello guys and gals, it's me Mutahar again! This time we take a look at an individual known as Techlead once again. This creator has had an incredibly controversial history but it's in the last few days he's decided to take advantage of the YouTube copyright system to gain information on his critics and unlawfully remove their content. YouTube needs to step in. Thanks for watching!

Added some clarification to the original title as it's a bit clickbaity.

tl;dw: A YouTuber by the name of "TechLead" has openly admitted to using the DMCA process to file illegitimate takedown requests against people who use any footage of him while making exposé videos.

The way it works is by filing a DMCA request against the video, which then forces the creator to respond to the complaint or have the video permanently deleted. Because DMCA complaints are a legal process, responding to the complaint entails supplying a lot of your personal information, which TechLead has been accused of leaking in the past. This forces creators to either expose their personal information to a person who has already had credible doxxing allegations made against them, or have their video removed and their channel permanently stricken.

This process is not only a violation of YouTube's ToS, but also several US laws; depending on what he does with the information he gets from the complaint response, it may fall under doxxing laws, but also knowingly submitting a frivolous DMCA request is considered perjury.

 
 

Don't poke the Viper in the jungle unless you're ready for the venom.

 

From the upcoming album “Cellophane Memories”by Chrystabell and David Lynch out on Sacred Bones Records on August 2, 2024.

view more: next ›