←back to thread

S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

(timkellogg.me)
851 points tkellogg | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
advael ◴[] No.42960025[source]
I'm strictly speaking never going to think of model distillation as "stealing." It goes against the spirit of scientific research, and besides every tech company has lost my permission to define what I think of as theft forever
replies(3): >>42962125 #>>42963994 #>>43000776 #
eru ◴[] No.42962125[source]
At most it would be illicit copying.

Though it's poetic justice that OpenAI is complaining about someone else playing fast and loose with copyright rules.

replies(3): >>42963268 #>>42963479 #>>42966120 #
downrightmike ◴[] No.42963479[source]
The First Amendment is not just about free speech, but also the right to read, the only question is if AI has that right.
replies(4): >>42964640 #>>42965071 #>>42967832 #>>42968680 #
organsnyder ◴[] No.42964640[source]
If AI was just reading, there would be much less controversy. It would also be pretty useless. The issue is that AI is creating its own derivative content based on the content it ingests.
replies(1): >>42965772 #
boxcake ◴[] No.42965772[source]
Isn't any answer to a question which hasn't been previously answered a derivative work? Or when a human write a parody of a song, or when a new type of music is influenced by something which came before.
replies(1): >>42966652 #
nrabulinski ◴[] No.42966652[source]
This argument is so bizarre to me. Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts. AI doesn’t have that. Even if someone’s comment is influenced by all the data they have ingested over their lives, their style is distinct and deliberate, to the point where people have been doxxed before/anonymous accounts have been uncovered because someone recognized the writing style. There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical probabilities. There’s no new or spontaneous thoughts, at most pseudorandomness introduced by the author of the model interface.

Even if you give GenAI unlimited time, it will not develop its own writing/drawing/painting style or come up with a novel idea, because strictly by how it works it can only create „new” work by interpolating its dataset

replies(3): >>42967137 #>>42967668 #>>43001383 #
1. Ringz ◴[] No.42967137[source]
> Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts.

The compatibility of determinism and freedom of will is still controversially debated. There is a good chance that Humans don’t „create“.

> There’s no deliberation behind AI, just statistical probabilities. There’s no new or spontaneous thoughts, at most pseudorandomness introduced by the author of the model interface.

You can say exactly the same about deterministic humans since it is often argued that the randomness of thermodynamic or quantum mechanical processes is irrelevant to the question of whether free will is possible. This is justified by the fact that our concept of freedom means a decision that is self-determined by reasons and not a sequence of events determined by chance.

replies(1): >>42967892 #
2. eru ◴[] No.42967892[source]
> The compatibility of determinism and freedom of will is still controversially debated. There is a good chance that Humans don’t „create“.

Determinism and free will are pretty irrelevant here.

Unless P=NP, there's no way for us to distinguish in general between eg pseudo random systems and truly random systems from the outside.

Btw, I don't think determinism in humans/AI has anything to do with deliberation.

The newest AI models are allowed to deliberate. At least by some meanings of the word.

> This is justified by the fact that our concept of freedom means a decision that is self-determined by reasons and not a sequence of events determined by chance.

Well, different people have different definitions here. None of them very satisfying.

replies(1): >>42971589 #
3. Ringz ◴[] No.42971589[source]
> Determinism and free will are pretty irrelevant here.

No. It’s the other way around. Free will is the basic for „creating something new“.

> Btw, I don't think determinism in humans/AI has anything to do with deliberation.

With determinism there is no deliberation.

replies(1): >>42972552 #
4. eru ◴[] No.42972552{3}[source]
> With determinism there is no deliberation.

As far as we can tell, all the laws of the universe are completely deterministic. (And that includes quantum mechanics.) As far as we can tell, human beings obey the laws of physics.

(To explain: quantum mechanics as a theory is completely deterministic and even linear. Some outdated interpretations of quantum mechanics, like Copenhagen, use randomisation. But interpretations don't make a difference to what the underlying theory actually is. And more widely accepted interpretations like 'Many Worlds' preserve the determinism of the underlying theory.)

Btw, neural nets are typically sampled from, and you can use as good a random number generator (even a physical random number generator) as there is, if you want to. I don't think it'll change what we think neural nets are capable of.

replies(1): >>42975363 #
5. vidarh ◴[] No.42975363{4}[source]
That's exactly their point (and mine), with respect to the person above arguing humans unlike AI can create "new things". For that distinction to make sense "new things" must be interpreted as "something that can't be deterministically derived from the current world state", as they're trying to create a distinction between a purely deterministic algorithm and human consciousness.