you are confusing two issues here: oversight for the output of an ANN can very much achieve good results. as i explained in my post.
oversight over the output won’t help you with copyright, water and energy consumption, slave labour and all the ethical issues further up the pipeline. but we don’t need ANNs for big corpos to do all these evil things. we need oversight and real consequences for those corpos - no matter what they produce.
ANNs as a technology are old and have not fundamentally changed since Alan Turing. Sure, we have iterated and improved. But the fundamentals are the same. LLMs just made that old tech quite popular recently and introduced a “line go up” race. i do not believe that we will gain significant improvements from simply feeding more stolen works to the machine. A fraction of the MNIST dataset is enough to train an ANN on a 20 years old laptop to recognise the digits 0-9 reliably. The technology is sound, limited in its usability and detached from the big corpos.
so why are you advocating for not avoiding all generative AI code then? you specifically cited Linus, who does as far as i know not ensure cleared up training data (what would that even be, CC0 only?) like you seem to be advocating for.
once again: oversight of the production line != oversight of the output.
i specifically said that i do trust Linus Torvalds to ensure no bullshit is pushed to the Linux kernel. that is oversight of the output.
we need oversight of the production line. but of all the production lines, not only the ones delivering LLMs. big corporations have a tendency to blatantly break the law and get away with a fee that is smaller than their profit. if they don’t break the law by the letter, they have good lawyers to skirt around it and noone has a morality police. oversight would mean not only catching these things but also punishing such behaviour in a meaningful way.
training an LLM eith CC0 would be fair game. properly bought (declared it is for training some AI) resources as well. i fully disagree with the current training methods: just feeding more to the black box - to that extent, that they buy (improperly) and destroy books just to get some more words into their respective model. i am sure, that other approaches would get better results. but that is slower and more expensive. so the problem is how most AI companies operate - not the actual product. but if it wasn’t “AI”, it would be something else with the exact same bullshit practices.
you are confusing two issues here: oversight for the output of an ANN can very much achieve good results. as i explained in my post.
oversight over the output won’t help you with copyright, water and energy consumption, slave labour and all the ethical issues further up the pipeline. but we don’t need ANNs for big corpos to do all these evil things. we need oversight and real consequences for those corpos - no matter what they produce.
ANNs as a technology are old and have not fundamentally changed since Alan Turing. Sure, we have iterated and improved. But the fundamentals are the same. LLMs just made that old tech quite popular recently and introduced a “line go up” race. i do not believe that we will gain significant improvements from simply feeding more stolen works to the machine. A fraction of the MNIST dataset is enough to train an ANN on a 20 years old laptop to recognise the digits 0-9 reliably. The technology is sound, limited in its usability and detached from the big corpos.
so why are you advocating for not avoiding all generative AI code then? you specifically cited Linus, who does as far as i know not ensure cleared up training data (what would that even be, CC0 only?) like you seem to be advocating for.
once again: oversight of the production line != oversight of the output.
i specifically said that i do trust Linus Torvalds to ensure no bullshit is pushed to the Linux kernel. that is oversight of the output.
we need oversight of the production line. but of all the production lines, not only the ones delivering LLMs. big corporations have a tendency to blatantly break the law and get away with a fee that is smaller than their profit. if they don’t break the law by the letter, they have good lawyers to skirt around it and noone has a morality police. oversight would mean not only catching these things but also punishing such behaviour in a meaningful way.
training an LLM eith CC0 would be fair game. properly bought (declared it is for training some AI) resources as well. i fully disagree with the current training methods: just feeding more to the black box - to that extent, that they buy (improperly) and destroy books just to get some more words into their respective model. i am sure, that other approaches would get better results. but that is slower and more expensive. so the problem is how most AI companies operate - not the actual product. but if it wasn’t “AI”, it would be something else with the exact same bullshit practices.