I really fear for the internet and what it will become in even just another year, with the rise of AI writing and AI art being used in place of real people. And now OpenAI openly state they need to use copyrighted works for training material.
As reported by The Guardian, the New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft over copyright infringement and just recently OpenAI sent a submission to the UK House of Lords Communications and Digital Select Committee where OpenAI said pretty clearly:
Because copyright today covers virtually every sort of human expression– including blog posts, photographs, forum posts, scraps of software code, and government documents–it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without using copyrighted materials. Limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment, but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens.
Worth noting OpenAI put up their own news post "OpenAI and journalism" on January 8th.
Why am I writing about this here? Well, the reasoning is pretty simple. AI writing is (on top of other things) increasing the race to the bottom of content for clicks. Search engines have quickly become a mess to find what you actually want, and it's only going to continue getting far worse thanks to all these SEO (Search Engine Optimisation) bait content farms, with more popping up all the time, and we've already seen some bigger websites trial AI writing. The internet is a mess.
As time goes on, and as more people use AI to pinch content and write entire articles, we're going to hand off profitable writing to a select few big names only who can weather the storm and handle it. A lot of smaller scale websites are just going to die off. Any time you search for something, it will be those big names sprinkled in between the vast AI website farms all with very similar robotic plain writing styles.
Many (most?) websites make content for search engines, not for people. The Verge recently did a rather fascinating piece on this showing how websites are designed around Google, and it really is something worth scrolling through and reading.
One thing you can count on: my perfectly imperfect writing full of terrible grammar continuing without the use of AI. At least it's natural right? I write as I speak, for better or worse. By humans, for humans — a tagline I plan to stick with until AI truly takes over and I have to go find a job flipping burgers or something. But then again, there will be robots for that too. I think I need to learn how to fish…
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Quoting: dvdMaybe i'm wrong but to me what seems especially funny is how quick they went from 'non-profit' to profit-oriented.OpenAI has never been non-profit and it still doesn't make any profit(both are true, but it sounds like paradox bear with me).
OpenAI doesn't make any profit in the sense that their expenses vastly exceed their income.
OpenAI isn't a non-profit in the sense that they have always been very clear that they wanted profit. Their biggest investor Bill Gates somewhat muddled the waters, but that isn't OpenAI's fault.
Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: LoudTechieUh, yeah, and that makes it worth it how if there's no revenue associated? I was pointing out where the revenue seems to be coming from. You counter that not by pointing out that the stuff is expensive, which just makes the point that they better have some revenue coming in, but by pointing out an alternative source of revenue, and suggesting some reason they'd want that source instead rather than having both. (Except you shouldn't, because I'm rightQuoting: Purple Library GuyAnd there doesn't seem to be anything else in the wind that would make it worth all the expense of making the AI.There is another reason it's worth it.
Few entities have the budget to do it.)
Sorry. I didn't make my point clear.
Those using my reasoning intend to use their control of a market they already control to be their source of income for it, but want to protect that source of income from competition with deep learning(I realized we might be talking about different things under the same banner).
It's somewhat like buying a lock for your house. Is a lock profitable. It doesn't generate money, but it keeps others from taking what you already possess.
Quoting: LoudTechieWell, yes, that's certainly part of it. But they're going for the part I mentioned too--I mean, why not? Sure, it could maim the internet goose that lays the golden eggs, but that's not a "next quarter" problem.Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: LoudTechieUh, yeah, and that makes it worth it how if there's no revenue associated? I was pointing out where the revenue seems to be coming from. You counter that not by pointing out that the stuff is expensive, which just makes the point that they better have some revenue coming in, but by pointing out an alternative source of revenue, and suggesting some reason they'd want that source instead rather than having both. (Except you shouldn't, because I'm rightQuoting: Purple Library GuyAnd there doesn't seem to be anything else in the wind that would make it worth all the expense of making the AI.There is another reason it's worth it.
Few entities have the budget to do it.
Sorry. I didn't make my point clear.
Those using my reasoning intend to use their control of a market they already control to be their source of income for it, but want to protect that source of income from competition with deep learning(I realized we might be talking about different things under the same banner).
It's somewhat like buying a lock for your house. Is a lock profitable. It doesn't generate money, but it keeps others from taking what you already possess.
Quoting: Purple Library GuyThat young upstart stealing your market can come as much "next quarter" as next century. The problem isn't all these people with world shocking ideas and skills, but the problem is that even one my exist.Quoting: LoudTechieWell, yes, that's certainly part of it. But they're going for the part I mentioned too--I mean, why not? Sure, it could maim the internet goose that lays the golden eggs, but that's not a "next quarter" problem.Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: LoudTechieUh, yeah, and that makes it worth it how if there's no revenue associated? I was pointing out where the revenue seems to be coming from. You counter that not by pointing out that the stuff is expensive, which just makes the point that they better have some revenue coming in, but by pointing out an alternative source of revenue, and suggesting some reason they'd want that source instead rather than having both. (Except you shouldn't, because I'm rightQuoting: Purple Library GuyAnd there doesn't seem to be anything else in the wind that would make it worth all the expense of making the AI.There is another reason it's worth it.
Few entities have the budget to do it.
Sorry. I didn't make my point clear.
Those using my reasoning intend to use their control of a market they already control to be their source of income for it, but want to protect that source of income from competition with deep learning(I realized we might be talking about different things under the same banner).
It's somewhat like buying a lock for your house. Is a lock profitable. It doesn't generate money, but it keeps others from taking what you already possess.
Having said that, I do agree that your reason is probably also on the list of legit reasons to invest in AI for these companies.
Quoting: Purple Library Guy...say the government paid authors....Yes, my mind went there as well when thinking of counters, and then I dismissed the thought.
I do see your point, however it seems more theoretical than practical today.
Quoting: 14I play tabletop RPGs; it's useful to me to not let my thinking stick in present-day grooves.Quoting: Purple Library Guy...say the government paid authors....Yes, my mind went there as well when thinking of counters, and then I dismissed the thought.
I do see your point, however it seems more theoretical than practical today.
Quoting: Purple Library GuyOr, say the government paid authors
If you don't know it yet...
https://no-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Innkj%C3%B8psordningene_for_litteratur?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Quoting: EikeThat's pretty cool.Quoting: Purple Library GuyOr, say the government paid authors
If you don't know it yet...
https://no-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Innkj%C3%B8psordningene_for_litteratur?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me