←back to thread

S1: A $6 R1 competitor?

(timkellogg.me)
851 points tkellogg | 1 comments | 05 Feb 25 11:05 UTC | HN request time: 0.324s | source
Show context
advael ◴[06 Feb 25 07:36 UTC] 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 ◴[06 Feb 25 13:34 UTC] 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 ◴[06 Feb 25 15:47 UTC] 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 ◴[06 Feb 25 17:41 UTC] 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 ◴[06 Feb 25 19:42 UTC] 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 ◴[06 Feb 25 21:26 UTC] 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. fennecfoxy ◴[10 Feb 25 15:26 UTC] No.43001383[source]▶
>Humans create new, spontaneous thoughts I don't believe we do; just look to media, very few plot-lines in Movies/TV are little more than "boy meets girl Pocahontas".

And if you say that a model could not create anything new because of it's static data set but humans could...I disagree with that because us humans are working with a data set that we add to some days, but if we use the example of writing a TV script, the writer draw from their knowledge (gained thru life experience) that is as finite as a model's training set is.

I've made this sort of comment before. Even look to high fantasy; what are elves but humans with different ears? Goblins are just little humans with green skin. Dragons are just big lizards. Minotaurs are just humans but mixed with a bull. We basically create no new ideas - 99% of human "creativity" is just us riffing on things we know of that already exist.

I'd say the incidences of humans having a brand new thought or experience not rooted in something that already exists is very, very low.

Even just asking free chat gpt to make me a fantasy species with some culture and some images of the various things it described does pretty well; https://imgchest.com/p/lqyeapqkk7d. But it's all rooted in existing concepts, same as anything most humans would produce.