AI/Automation Megathread

[Agent23]

Humanoid robots at the Geneva Conference have a newser with the press.


The robots were running latest generative AI and answered questions without human intervention, even the creators were surprised at how sophisticated the answers were.

The robots assured the reporters that they would not take any jobs or rebel against mankind; that they could do a lot of good if they were just let loose; that they don't believe in limitations, only opportunities; and that an AI-governed world would be better than one ruled by humans. The robots also went full full White House Press Secretary in talking circles around and avoiding a few questions. There is absolutely nothing ominous going on here.

AI robots say they can run the world better than humans but won't steal jobs

Humanoid robots took questions from the press at UN's 'AI for Good' conference in Geneva.

interestingengineering.com

Waifubots those ain't.

Need more work.

And lots of specialized "peripherals" that can deal with inputs...of the liquid variety...

Artifical womb and better power source are a given, too.

 

[DarthOne]

Waifubots those ain't.

Need more work.

And lots of specialized "peripherals" that can deal with inputs...of the liquid variety...

Artifical womb and better power source are a given, too.

You want that bridge to Hawaii to be 2 or 4 lane?

Also by the time that gets figured out, society will hopefully have been corrected.

 

[Bear Ribs]

Waifubots those ain't.

Need more work.

And lots of specialized "peripherals" that can deal with inputs...of the liquid variety...

Artifical womb and better power source are a given, too.

Maybe your standards are just too high, have you ever had a Waifubot? No? Perhaps you need to increase your own value or lower your standards in order to attract one.

 

[Cherico]

You want that bridge to Hawaii to be 2 or 4 lane?

Also by the time that gets figured out, society will hopefully have been corrected.

In theory its possible to build a road network to Hawaii.

It took roughly 6 years to build the chunnel which is about 30 miles long rounding down six years, so with todays tech it could in theory be done after centuries of work which of course makes it not feasible and a horrible idea but it could be done. Cheaper to just use a boat.

As for our problems, I think thats a generations long issue because the current managerial elite has to be replaced with another new elite that hasn't lost the plot and while we have shifted out elites in america before the current managerial one shows signs of being a lot more toxic then the capitalist, agarian, and yankee merchant elites that were replaced in the past.

 

[Agent23]

Maybe your standards are just too high, have you ever had a Waifubot? No? Perhaps you need to increase your own value or lower your standards in order to attract one.

Now put on a purple wig and say it in the lispy Karrren voice!

And use 'like' as every second word.

 

[Bear Ribs]

New mod in Skyrim, Herika is a snarky AI companion that listens to your mic. She responds in real time to your words and generates her own statements on the fly. The text-to-speech seems slightly stilted, and conversations aren't perfect yet, but I find this is still a staggering step forward in gaming. Assuming it gets picked up by big devs... which I'm pretty sure it will... this is going to revolutionize NPCs in the next generation of games.

 

[Bigking321]

That's sure... something.

Love the idea of a game listening to everything.

No wait... I hate that idea.

 

[Bear Ribs]

That's sure... something.

Love the idea of a game listening to everything.

No wait... I hate that idea.

Me personally, I've grown increasingly into the habit of pulling my wireless connector out any time except when I'm actively using the internet. I'm distinctly considering switching to two computers and sneaker netting anything important between them, but currently don't have the resources for that.

I'm avoiding the internet of things like the plague.

 

[Blasterbot]

New mod in Skyrim, Herika is a snarky AI companion that listens to your mic. She responds in real time to your words and generates her own statements on the fly. The text-to-speech seems slightly stilted, and conversations aren't perfect yet, but I find this is still a staggering step forward in gaming. Assuming it gets picked up by big devs... which I'm pretty sure it will... this is going to revolutionize NPCs in the next generation of games.

nah not all NPCs. just imagine a companion though with a decent chat bot who has a relatively waifuable design. lonely nerds will throw so much money at it.

 

[Bear Ribs]

nah not all NPCs. just imagine a companion though with a decent chat bot who has a relatively waifuable design. lonely nerds will throw so much money at it.

Well right now it's a purely experimental companion that... okay there's probably somebody Waifu'ing Henrika right now but that pretty clearly isn't the goal.

If this can be applied on a grand scale, though, we could produce a living world where all the NPCs are acting like real people, capable of carrying on an actual conversation with the player, perhaps even simulating things like gossip networks for reputation and the like. Heck, do this properly to the villain and they may adapt as the game progresses, giving the player a truly different experience every time since the villain will also change their plans to account for the player's actions and their lines would no longer be pre-recorded but impromptu actual intelligent rebuttals and arguments.

Granted that's a ways off, Henrika notably still has the current-generation AI issues with short-term memory, f'rex. But this is still... game-changing.

 

[Abhorsen]

Split discussion from here:

Five minutes of hate news

Even ignoring the ownership debate, there's still the question of how far you can go to enforce IP protections without infringing on the NAP in other ways? Violating IP violates the NAP (though I'll note I have a very broad take on what qualifies as fair use). As for how to resolve this...

www.the-sietch.com

Except the art was never stolen. As far as I'm aware, AI art programs are trained mostly with stuff people post onto free hosting sites like Deviantart and Pixiv, so you can't ague that they were obtained illegally.

Sorry about the sudden shift in location, I'm trying not to derail the previous thread further.

So just because someone posts something online doesn't necessarily mean they allow it to be used for anything or copied anywhere. Now maybe the places had in their TOS's terms allowing for the use in training AI models, but I don't know if that is the case. From what I know, allowing a website to have rights to distribute your work to other sites, and not just display it, isn't something an artist would normally agree with. But maybe they did. But in general, I'm wary of TOS's actually being a contract unless they are dead clear and short, because they aren't usually read, and both sides know this. I view them frequently as somewhat abusive and edging on deceit, which does violate the NAP as an implicit theft.

Also, the wariness about licensing goes double for code, btw. A lot of code has restrictive licensing, especially GPL code. Was the code correctly sourced? I really don't know, and I tend to doubt it.

Tbc, I like AI, and I welcome my AI overlords. I just think they need to be ethically sourced.

 

[Terthna]

Split discussion from here:

Five minutes of hate news

Even ignoring the ownership debate, there's still the question of how far you can go to enforce IP protections without infringing on the NAP in other ways? Violating IP violates the NAP (though I'll note I have a very broad take on what qualifies as fair use). As for how to resolve this...

www.the-sietch.com

Sorry about the sudden shift in location, I'm trying not to derail the previous thread further.

So just because someone posts something online doesn't necessarily mean they allow it to be used for anything or copied anywhere. Now maybe the places had in their TOS's terms allowing for the use in training AI models, but I don't know if that is the case. From what I know, allowing a website to have rights to distribute your work to other sites, and not just display it, isn't something an artist would normally agree with. But maybe they did. But in general, I'm wary of TOS's actually being a contract unless they are dead clear and short, because they aren't usually read, and both sides know this. I view them frequently as somewhat abusive and edging on deceit, which does violate the NAP as an implicit theft.

Also, the wariness about licensing goes double for code, btw. A lot of code has restrictive licensing, especially GPL code. Was the code correctly sourced? I really don't know, and I tend to doubt it.

Tbc, I like AI, and I welcome my AI overlords. I just think they need to be ethically sourced.

We already had an AI thread: AI/Automation Megathread

That aside, you're trying to make a distinction that does not exist. When someone makes their work freely available, such as by posting it online, they are implicitly allowing other people to see it, and store it in their brains to potentially help inspire their own creations later on. There is zero difference between a person doing this, and an AI art program.

 

[Abhorsen]

We already had an AI thread: AI/Automation Megathread

Thanks for telling me, I just moved it.

That aside, you're trying to make a distinction that does not exist. When someone makes their work freely available, such as by posting it online, they are implicitly allowing other people to see it, and store it in their brains to potentially help inspire their own creations later on. There is zero difference between a person doing this, and an AI art program.

No, there very much is. A copyright originates from what it says, a right to copy. When a work was given out, it was given out with conditions. Those conditions could be arbitrary, but those were the conditions it was given out under. Usually, that condition was that the right to make copies was reserved by the copyright holder, but other conditions could be applied instead, as a sale is in essence a contract.

So for example, if someone posts something on the internet in 2015, their work is 'freely' available, as in free beer, but not freely available as in assigning it to the public domain. They retained the right to do certain things with the work, in the same way that a book with a copyright on it would signify that a person owning the book does not own the right to copy it. Hence, the online writer may or may not be pissed if people use their data as part of a data set, and likely more on the angry side if that data set would be used to create art.

So a person might not be willing for it to be read by a machine to learn off of. But more than that! if the info is copied and fed to the machine (i.e. stored in a database), that's a direct violation of literal copyright, as you made a copy of the website without permission. These two things might not be in the terms in which the artist supplied the work to the public.

tl;dr: The distinction, or any distinction, can exist as long as the right holder thinks that distinction exists. For all I care, they could have a popup prior to view that bans redheads from going further and bans sharing with redheads.

 

[Skallagrim]

but the thing you are discounting is the labor. Bart is using his stuff, but he's also using Adam's labor (the words in the book) without Adam's permission, which is a large part of the labor in the book itself. When it comes to software/digital art, the idea becomes nearly the entire value of the piece.

Yes, he is ignoring that, and rightfully so. Because the labour theory of value is bunk.

IP isn't and cannot be consistent with actual property rights, because it violates real and demonstrable property rights in order to protect hypothetical and imaginary ones... derived from a discredited theory of value.

Long story short: in order to claim a violation of your property rights, you have to actually show the violation. If I replicate something, I take nothing from you. Nothing except hypothetical profits to which you feel you are entitled. But that entitlement is imaginary.

The idea is not yours. Only the specific execution is yours. If Bob makes a car and I steal it, I'm a thief. If Bob makes a car and I decide to make my own car, I'm just doing what makes sense. And if Bob then starts screeching about how he owns the idea-- piss off, Bob, I'm as free to make a thing as you are, regardless of whether you did it first.

Once an idea is in the world, it's there for anyone to use. People who disagree with that -- the proponents of so-called "intellectual property" -- are effectively calling for shackles on the mind; for a dictatorship whose gaze peers into our minds.

As all available evidence currently indicates, IP is exactly what we'd expect: a brutish tool for the powerful to control everyone else. A stick for Disney to hit children when they have the audacity to paint Mickey Mouse on the walls of their school. If we expand this power yet further (and your position does support that, whether you actively want that or not), the result will be yet more such abuses.

There is only one proper position: that of Jefferson. The clear understanding that ideas cannot be owned, and that property rights apply only to the physical world. This means abolishing IP completely. It means a return to the correct situation, where artists are paid for their performance, or for a specific creation. A world where styles flow and evolve naturally, as artists freely imitate each other; where stories are free to be re-told both faithfully and creatively; where written accounts habitually borrow from one another; where songs are experienced in unique moments during live performances, which are worth paying for even when the generic recordings are free online.

A world where most artists are self-publishing, and most studios -- those big fat parasites -- are thankfully bankrupt. Such a world will be both more creative and more free.

 

[Cherico]

Yes, he is ignoring that, and rightfully so. Because the labour theory of value is bunk.

IP isn't and cannot be consistent with actual property rights, because it violates real and demonstrable property rights in order to protect hypothetical and imaginary ones... derived from a discredited theory of value.

Long story short: in order to claim a violation of your property rights, you have to actually show the violation. If I replicate something, I take nothing from you. Nothing except hypothetical profits to which you feel you are entitled. But that entitlement is imaginary.

The idea is not yours. Only the specific execution is yours. If Bob makes a car and I steal it, I'm a thief. If Bob makes a car and I decide to make my own car, I'm just doing what makes sense. And if Bob then starts screeching about how he owns the idea-- piss off, Bob, I'm as free to make a thing as you are, regardless of whether you did it first.

Once an idea is in the world, it's there for anyone to use. People who disagree with that -- the proponents of so-called "intellectual property" -- are effectively calling for shackles on the mind; for a dictatorship whose gaze peers into our minds.

As all available evidence currently indicates, IP is exactly what we'd expect: a brutish tool for the powerful to control everyone else. A stick for Disney to hit children when they have the audacity to paint Mickey Mouse on the walls of their school. If we expand this power yet further (and your position does support that, whether you actively want that or not), the result will be yet more such abuses.

There is only one proper position: that of Jefferson. The clear understanding that ideas cannot be owned, and that property rights apply only to the physical world. This means abolishing IP completely. It means a return to the correct situation, where artists are paid for their performance, or for a specific creation. A world where styles flow and evolve naturally, as artists freely imitate each other; where stories are free to be re-told both faithfully and creatively; where written accounts habitually borrow from one another; where songs are experienced in unique moments during live performances, which are worth paying for even when the generic recordings are free online.

A world where most artists are self-publishing, and most studios -- those big fat parasites -- are thankfully bankrupt. Such a world will be both more creative and more free.

more and more artists are self-publishing these days.

 

[mrttao]

Yes, he is ignoring that, and rightfully so. Because the labour theory of value is bunk.

IP isn't and cannot be consistent with actual property rights, because it violates real and demonstrable property rights in order to protect hypothetical and imaginary ones... derived from a discredited theory of value.

Long story short: in order to claim a violation of your property rights, you have to actually show the violation. If I replicate something, I take nothing from you. Nothing except hypothetical profits to which you feel you are entitled. But that entitlement is imaginary.

The idea is not yours. Only the specific execution is yours. If Bob makes a car and I steal it, I'm a thief. If Bob makes a car and I decide to make my own car, I'm just doing what makes sense. And if Bob then starts screeching about how he owns the idea-- piss off, Bob, I'm as free to make a thing as you are, regardless of whether you did it first.

Once an idea is in the world, it's there for anyone to use. People who disagree with that -- the proponents of so-called "intellectual property" -- are effectively calling for shackles on the mind; for a dictatorship whose gaze peers into our minds.

As all available evidence currently indicates, IP is exactly what we'd expect: a brutish tool for the powerful to control everyone else. A stick for Disney to hit children when they have the audacity to paint Mickey Mouse on the walls of their school. If we expand this power yet further (and your position does support that, whether you actively want that or not), the result will be yet more such abuses.

There is only one proper position: that of Jefferson. The clear understanding that ideas cannot be owned, and that property rights apply only to the physical world. This means abolishing IP completely. It means a return to the correct situation, where artists are paid for their performance, or for a specific creation. A world where styles flow and evolve naturally, as artists freely imitate each other; where stories are free to be re-told both faithfully and creatively; where written accounts habitually borrow from one another; where songs are experienced in unique moments during live performances, which are worth paying for even when the generic recordings are free online.

A world where most artists are self-publishing, and most studios -- those big fat parasites -- are thankfully bankrupt. Such a world will be both more creative and more free.

Beautifully well put... And I mostly agree. Initially I wanted to fully agree.

Although, there is one specific case where I would think IP could potentially have value.
And that is to prevent a megacorp from stealing the work of an individual.

I would thus argue that rather than completely abolishing IP
we should abolish IP for corporations.
Only individual human beings should be able to own an invention.
And even then it needs massive massive curtailing.

 

[Wargamer08]

Yes, he is ignoring that, and rightfully so. Because the labour theory of value is bunk.

IP isn't and cannot be consistent with actual property rights, because it violates real and demonstrable property rights in order to protect hypothetical and imaginary ones... derived from a discredited theory of value.

Long story short: in order to claim a violation of your property rights, you have to actually show the violation. If I replicate something, I take nothing from you. Nothing except hypothetical profits to which you feel you are entitled. But that entitlement is imaginary.

The idea is not yours. Only the specific execution is yours. If Bob makes a car and I steal it, I'm a thief. If Bob makes a car and I decide to make my own car, I'm just doing what makes sense. And if Bob then starts screeching about how he owns the idea-- piss off, Bob, I'm as free to make a thing as you are, regardless of whether you did it first.

Once an idea is in the world, it's there for anyone to use. People who disagree with that -- the proponents of so-called "intellectual property" -- are effectively calling for shackles on the mind; for a dictatorship whose gaze peers into our minds.

As all available evidence currently indicates, IP is exactly what we'd expect: a brutish tool for the powerful to control everyone else. A stick for Disney to hit children when they have the audacity to paint Mickey Mouse on the walls of their school. If we expand this power yet further (and your position does support that, whether you actively want that or not), the result will be yet more such abuses.

There is only one proper position: that of Jefferson. The clear understanding that ideas cannot be owned, and that property rights apply only to the physical world. This means abolishing IP completely. It means a return to the correct situation, where artists are paid for their performance, or for a specific creation. A world where styles flow and evolve naturally, as artists freely imitate each other; where stories are free to be re-told both faithfully and creatively; where written accounts habitually borrow from one another; where songs are experienced in unique moments during live performances, which are worth paying for even when the generic recordings are free online.

A world where most artists are self-publishing, and most studios -- those big fat parasites -- are thankfully bankrupt. Such a world will be both more creative and more free.

How do you prevent the tyranny of mass production? That is to say, I personally write a book and print copies for sale. Megacorp Rainforest buys one, copies it and prints a hundred thousand copies for far less then I'm able to and undercuts me. The same for music and engineering. Wholesale removal of IP seems like it would be a massive win for big business and no one else. Offering zero incentives for innovation or even iteration.

 

[Cherico]

How do you prevent the tyranny of mass production? That is to say, I personally write a book and print copies for sale. Megacorp Rainforest buys one, copies it and prints a hundred thousand copies for far less then I'm able to and undercuts me. The same for music and engineering. Wholesale removal of IP seems like it would be a massive win for big business and no one else. Offering zero incentives for innovation or even iteration.

The internet has kind of lessoned the impact of such things a lot of authors are self publishing and sell their own stuff. I see that being more and more common as time goes on.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Stuff which helps the common-people usually also helps big corps/governments because said groups are made up of common(ish)-people.

The biggest issue will always be a matter of will, rather than a matter of power.
To make an analogy, give a pacifist a nuclear bomb and nothing happens. Give a murderer a fork and he'll stab a child to death with it. That doesn't mean nuclear bombs are safer than forks, and it also doesn't mean forks should be criminalized.

Libertarians have a tough fight ahead of themselves and I feel sorry for them.

 

[Wargamer08]

The internet has kind of lessoned the impact of such things a lot of authors are self publishing and sell their own stuff. I see that being more and more common as time goes on.

Only because copyright protects them from plagiarzation. No IP, what stops someone from reselling your work for pennies? Why would they care at the cost, it took them zero effort to copy you, so any money is fine.