That sounds…

Easier to get almost right than actually learning the subject.

Much, much harder to get completely right than actually learning the subject.

So yes, basically the archetypal use case for LLMs.

Go for it!

There’s a lot of potential here.

lemmy_check: crowdsourced fact-checking

lemmy_see: spot to compare pics of arbitrary stuff (lemmy see your favorite mug)

lemmy_know: ad-hoc polls, recommendations or requests for how-tos (lemmy know how you season your mac and cheese)

lemmy_tell_ya: rants about whatever

It does not make you a bad person to correctly interpret what someone means.

When your racist uncle complains about “thugs”, it doesn’t make you a bad person to infer that he means black people.

When you see what you know to be a very old brand, it doesn’t make you a bad person to infer that “doctor”, to the brand-makers, certainly meant “male doctor”.

Also one of the most identifiable features of them are the floor to ceiling windows.

Some products have discounted prices for Prime members.

Surprising number of people taking this seriously.

I legit have a copy of this story somewhere that ends with a “the moral is…” statement along the lines of “that’s why you should work hard and not be lazy”.

Like, what? We did not cover the work ethic of the pigs at all here. As far as I can tell, they each built an entire goddamn house! What about the wolf?

Fingernail Spiderhole

Manchurian gold?

It’s wild that linear perspective was invented.

Like, for a long time, this was a completely reasonable way to depict the world.

But if I think about my mental model of what I’m seeing at this moment, it’s automatically in linear perspective. It doesn’t feel like I even need to try, it just is that way.

It makes me wonder what other concepts are shaping (or could shape) my perception in such comprehensive and indelible ways.

https://www.mindful.org/why-crying-equals-thriving/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-apes/201910/the-secret-reason-why-we-cry

Aren’t MP3s just a statistical correlation?

Besides, you really don’t need to zoom in on “but muh license agreement” to roast these AI turds.

They’re very clear: We’re gonna put creatives out of work, we’re gonna sell a unified product to replace them, and we’re gonna use their own labor to build their replacements.

That’s anticompetitive.

Nail em on that instead of trying to thread the needle on reining in the tech lords without damaging e.g. linguistic analysis researchers.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2020/05/19/yanss-179-the-memory-illusion/

Julia is famous among psychologists because she was able to implant false memories into a group of subjects and convince 70 percent of them that they were guilty of a crime they did not commit, and she did so by using the sort of sloppy interrogation techniques that some police departments have been truly been guilty of using in the past.

“…and you relieve whatever you want to relieve”

Does this imply the existence of Willem DaFriend?

The reason I’m skeptical of a copyright-based solution is that there’s a massive potential for collateral damage.

Like, the overall process of creating ChatGPT is not that different from the process of using ML to analyze how language use has changed over time, which I think is a completely positive thing for humanity and probably doesn’t ruffle anyone’s feathers.

I’m not sure how you write legislation that zeroes in on the exact harms posed by ChatGPT et. al. but doesn’t endanger these other efforts… and also doesn’t leave open an alternative, indirect route for OpenAI, Stability, et. al. to accomplish the same end goal without technically infringing.

There’s also the “giving a bullied kid more lunch money” criticism that Cory Doctorow is fond of using:

After 40 years of expanded copyright, we have a creative industry that’s larger and more profitable than ever, and yet the share of income going to creative workers has been in steady decline over that entire period. Every year, the share of creative income that creative workers can lay claim to declines, both proportionally and in real terms.

As with the mystery of Spotify’s payments, this isn’t a mystery at all. You just need to understand that when creators are stuck bargaining with a tiny, powerful cartel of movie, TV, music, publishing, streaming, games or app companies, it doesn’t matter how much copyright they have to bargain with. Giving a creative worker more copyright is like giving a bullied schoolkid more lunch-money. There’s no amount of money that will satisfy the bullies and leave enough left over for the kid to buy lunch. They just take everything.

Telling creative workers that they can solve their declining wages with more copyright is a denial that creative workers are workers at all. It treats us as entrepreneurial small businesses, LLCs with MFAs negotiating B2B with other companies. That’s how we lose.

Source: https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/21/off-the-menu/

You might be interested to see how FTC Chair Lina Khan thinks about this stuff, from a position which has a great deal of labor and antitrust regulatory power but no say in copyright: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mh8Z5pcJpg

You first, champ.

Maybe we can? Depends what you mean by “all of it”. Care to elaborate?

We desperately need AI regulation, but it needs to be focused on labor rights, privacy rights, and antitrust enforcement. Not copyright and DRM.