[OpenAI CEO Sam] Altman brags about ChatGPT-4.5’s improved “emotional intelligence,” which he says makes users feel like they’re “talking to a thoughtful person.” Dario Amodei, the CEO of the AI company Anthropic, argued last year that the next generation of artificial intelligence will be “smarter than a Nobel Prize winner.” Demis Hassabis, the CEO of Google’s DeepMind, said the goal is to create “models that are able to understand the world around us.” These statements betray a conceptual error: Large language models do not, cannot, and will not “understand” anything at all. They are not emotionally intelligent or smart in any meaningful or recognizably human sense of the word. LLMs are impressive probability gadgets that have been fed nearly the entire internet, and produce writing not by thinking but by making statistically informed guesses about which lexical item is likely to follow another.
Primary source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/technology/artificial-intelligence/artificial-intelligence-is-not-intelligent/ar-AA1GcZBz
Secondary source: https://bookshop.org/a/12476/9780063418561
He’s right and this is why AI artwork is the artwork of the person using the AI. It’s no different from a paintbrush. It’s a really advanced, very complicated paintbrush.
But I know the same people who argue chatbots aren’t intelligent also don’t want to recognize generated artwork as being the property of the user who generated it. It’s “AI artwork” and thus should be subject to scorn, ridicule, and has somehow stolen from all artists everywhere, who have ever lived or ever will live in the future.
If using AI to make ‘art’ (have a machine regurgitate other people’s art, the ones available right now literally can’t exist without other people’s art that it was trained on without permission, you don’t get to just skip this part because it annoys you) makes you an artist, then so does paying someone to make art and telling them how to make it. And walking into a restaurant and ordering something also makes you a chef. Paying to have someone build your house? You better believe that makes you an architect, carpenter, plumber, and electrician.
Telling someone how to make art makes you an artist Having someone cook your food makes you a chef Paying someone to build a house makes you a carpenter
You’re comparing AI to people. So you’re on the side of the argument that AI are people? Do you disagree with the article in the OP, and believe chatbots are actually intelligent?
Woooosh
I don’t skip machine learning, and machine learning doesn’t annoy me. People who don’t understand what machine learning is annoy me.
The works used for machine learning were not stolen. AI models do not contain any stolen works. Those works were not copied, and do not exist in the AI model. When AI models undergo machine learning, they scan the works fed to them and reduce all the commonalities into math. When prompted “draw me a duck” they use algorithms to produce the image of a duck, and those algorithms are accurate because they are the result of scanning a million pictures of ducks. Not one of those pictures actually exist in the model. Just the algorithm that is the result of the machine learning of ducks.
I use Stable Diffusion at home, and it is only a few gigabytes in size. If the model actually contained all the pictures used to train it, it would be petabytes in size. I couldn’t hope to fit it on my home desktop because it would be far too much data.
This is why I’m on the side that AI is just a paintbrush. It’s a highly advanced paintbrush, yes. But it is not intelligent.
Which is why I take note that you’re comparing AI to people. You can’t compare AI to people. Using AI is not the same as paying a chef, or paying a carpenter, or whatever. AI is a tool.
Our society needs a legal framework to deal with AI. We can go the route that AI is a tool - which means generated works are the property of those using the tool, or we can go the route of AI is sentient and has rights - which means we need to treat AI like they are people, and their works are their own.
If you are comparing AI to people, it seems to me that you believe in AI rights.
No more “Woooosh” I understand the issue at hand. But many people here just want to shitpost or post angry things. Give me a discussion.
That’s a lot of words for someone who clearly doesn’t actually understand how LLMs work or are trained.
I understand it better than the links which have been provided.
Fearmongering articles written by anti-AI bros that isn’t peer reviewed is a bad place to start.
Art was absolutely scrapped and stolen from the internet. Just because you use Stable Diffusion that doesn’t change facts.
Images produced by algorithms and RNG are not copied from existing works. Facts are facts.
Are you a child? “Not me, you!”
AI art is generated off of scraped art on the Internet. Everyone (but you) knows this.
*Ahem*
Simple Attack Allowed Extraction of ChatGPT Training Data
AIs Regurgitate Training Data
Image-generating AI can copy and paste from training data, raising IP concerns
Actual research disagrees with your opinion.
Ahem
Co-authored by scientists at the University of Maryland and New York University, the research identifies cases where image-generating models, including Stable Diffusion, “copy” from the public internet data — including copyrighted images — on which they were trained.
To be clear, the study hasn’t been peer reviewed yet.
YOU DON’T SAY???
Comparing Gen AI to a paintbrush is the same as comparing a quad to a unicycle. Sure, you’re not falling over, but is it really the same feat.
He’s right and this is why his comment is the artwork of the person replying to him. It’s no different from a keyboard. It’s a really advanced, very complicated keyboard.
But I know the same people who argue lemmings aren’t intelligent also don’t want to recognize generated comments as being the property of the user who generated it. It’s “shitposting” and thus should be subject to scorn, ridicule, and has somehow stolen from all commenters everywhere, who have ever lived or ever will live in the future.
I actually think that the prompt is, in fact, protected by copyright if it’s a non-trivial prompt. I mean “anime chick, big bewbs” won’t be protected by copyright, but a long sequence of detailed instructions would be.
What’s not protected by copyright (in any sane legal milieu) is the output.