Anyone seen Jade yet?
https://youtu.be/bHniCgwhrWY
https://euro.dayfr.com/world/127823.html
Who needs actors?
Easy come, easy go.
Interesting discussion about AI and intellectual property. Lawsuits are already flying around.
If what the AI spouts is not “yours”, you cannot sell it, you cannot generate income. So, what’s the point in using AI in first place?
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/andy…-generative-ai
In my limited understanding of the world, it means AI companies can sell their services to other companies with rather training data assets. For example, my employer has more than 1 century of engineering reports. That’s a fat training data set that can be used to write reports in the future and generate income. In contrast, proletarians with little to zero intellectual property to their name, they can only feed public domain stuff to the AI and what the AI spouts is also public domain.
I think I have already seen this movie: IBM Deep Blue. A great milestone in hardware and software, but IBM is not swimming in profits.
I doubt any output from AI is truly devoid of human input. It would be like arguing that a polaroid photo taken from a tripod mounted camera cannot be copyrighted because the 'camera' made the picture. Arguably, the set-up and prompting of AI could be sufficient.
In any case, the utility of AI is not restricted to final output, but also in assistance. You can ask it to generate 100 different images to help brianstorm or test variations of ideas. Use it to come up with points that you iteratively work on. I used it to write a report and used it iteratively to generate points, develop some of them and re-write. It was more akin to a collaboration with another.
Photos are a great example. A human chose to place the tripod in a point, pointing somewhere else, at a specific time of day with specific lighting,etc.....thus photo is property of X human. Of course, the human may be taking a photo of a mountain who belongs to someone(s) else(s), but the view of the mountain belongs to no one.
With AI, a significant part of the output comes from training data which are photos that belong to people, or not (public domain). So, if the photo belongs to someone, it is important to determine if the output of the AI is derivative work or just a copy. If the photo belongs to no one (public domain), output is public domain.
If I remember well, an EFer around here works on copyright issues and I'm sure is capable to give a more informed opinion.
Indeed, if a contract is won (fingers crossed) I'll have to automatize a few things with Python and I think this will be my first try at AI as assistant in coding.
In this case, what I'm selling is the output of an interaction with AI, not AI output. Not that different to selling the output of numerical simulations.
A case in point.
"Michael Schumacher’s family are planning legal action against a magazine which published an artificial intelligence-generated ‘interview’ with the former Formula 1 driver.
Schumacher, a seven-time F1 champion, suffered severe head injuries in a skiing accident in December 2013 and has not been seen in public since.
Die Aktuelle ran a picture of a smiling Schumacher, 54, on the front cover of its latest edition with a headline of “Michael Schumacher, the first interview”.
A strapline underneath reads “it sounded deceptively real”, and it emerges in the article that the supposed quotes had been produced by AI.
The article was produced using an AI programme called charatcter.ai, which artificially generated Schumacher ‘quotes’ about his health and family."
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/65333115
The magazine’s editor got fired for this idiotic stunt.
well, this is the key point that will be litigated on.
if you learn to paint and see various artworks and create your own which have been inspired by what you have seen, does it make your artwork a derivative work (assuming you don't make a direct copy)? what if it is just your own style which has been sub-consciously impacted by everything you have viewed (including copyrighted works)?
generative AI is much more analogous to this learning. it has been shown different images and has learned and generalised rules about images based on that. it doesn't store or copy the images. heck, the model for image generation might only be around 2GB in size.
Something scary to say the least.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65452940
The AI Godfather has left Google out of moral concern.
Are we ready for This Perfect Day?
From the investment side, quite interesting take from Bloomberg's Matt Levine:
Look like Uncle Joe is showing a bit of concern.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/w…tm_term=050423
Wall Street is doomed!
hahaha no!
The fresh perspective for me was to stop thinking about "AI & my job future" and start thinking about "potential impact on companies". Securities fraud is just the bait to make people read the text.
So, this company Chegg Inc, the wiki says it's an American education technology company that provides homework help, online tutoring ...so if a student had problems with homework, the student could use this platform to contact someone offering tutoring services. Enter ChatGPT that can effectively summarize larges of amounts of text and data, helps the student with homework and the use/revenue of Chegg goes down.
AI has proven to be able to summarize or condensate large datasets. I'm thinking...can I feed the AI the unreadable Terms and Conditions of daily life contracts to help me read them? From health insurance, mobile phone, apartment rental, car loan, job contract...if AI makes me "smarter", what will happen to the predatory practices of some companies?
It's no joke, there's a damned thread around here about cancelling gym memberships in Switzerland. If consumers can harness the power of AI to deal with thousands of pages of contracts, what will happen to the bottom line of business that rely on defending their deceitful business operations with 1000s of pages of T&Cs? So, this may be good in the end...the incentive to make unreadable contracts might disappear in the future and we go back to simple things because being obtuse becomes useless.
If it can do away with Lawyers, I'm all for it.
Yes. Soon we won't have to think anymore........ let the machines take over all our funktions.
Some it seems gave up thinking long ago...
After all, we’re only humans.
No surprise that a company hemorrhaging cash exaggerates the usefulness of the current service with the objective of demonstrating revenue. All in order to get more funding to produce next time a truly useful service.
Simply hate it when a link leads one to a site where a subscription is mandatory
That's progress!
haha Don't worry, relevant data is shown in the first few lines. You don't have to read the whole text, your school teacher is not going to make you feel bad for not finishing the text
I used it recently to rebut one of slammer's arguments in the British Empire thread. Seems to have worked...
Edit: now he's saying the Nazis were left wing because they called themselves National Socialists.
It took about 5 weeks to go from news headlines about AI to get here. I guess it's over, the future did not arrive last week. It will be another time.