@MisterBoring said in AI PBs:
This is an example of what I am hopeful AI will eventually do, which is help push scientific discovery forward.
That is neat, though it’s worth noting that this doesn’t appear to be “Generative AI” in the usual sense of ChatGPT, etc., but a custom-trained model. With much of this, it’s not the technology itself that is the problem, it’s the way in which it’s being trained and used that people take issue with.
@dvoraen Heh I enjoyed that video, thanks.
That reminds me of this post: My new hobby: watching AI slowly drive Microsoft employees insane. It’s reactions to a series of Pull Requests (the programmer equivalent of “Hey, I did a thing, someone check it out please and make sure I didn’t mess up”) from Copilot AI. The top comment says it all:
I just looked at that first PR and I don’t know how you could trust any of it at some point. No real understanding of what it’s doing, it’s just guessing. So many errors, over and over again.
Can AI tools make coding easier? Sure. Just in my lifetime I’ve seen code go from assembly language (low-level instructions to the computer registers) to visual coding tools (like Scratch) that let my kid build a game like Frogger. But even with that astonishing advancement, we still need developers to figure out what to build in the first place, and then make sure what gets built does what the customer needs. AI is highly unlikely to replace that in the forseeable future.
In other news: AI industry horrified to face largest copyright class action ever certified
They’ve warned that a single lawsuit raised by three authors over Anthropic’s AI training now threatens to “financially ruin” the entire AI industry if up to 7 million claimants end up joining the litigation and forcing a settlement.
I know it’s unlikely to succeed, but one can dream.
@ProperPenguin said in AI PBs:
When I told a few dev friends this, they got surprised and then tested on other instances (not just ChatGPT) and found yeah, it spits out a whole mess or sometimes it suddenly veers into turning your request into Python or similar.
Knowing how these things work, it is not at all surprising that they are bad at generating a custom regex. If you want a well-known one, maybe, but GenAI doesn’t truly think or reason. It generates statistically likely responses. Not correct ones.
But vetting regex-es is as hard as writing them, so you’re still not getting out ahead.
It doesn’t always do that either.
Yeah, there’s also this: Trust in AI Coding Tools is Falling.
The thing about GenAI is that it can make you seem more competent at a skill without actually having the competence. Maybe enough to fool a layperson, but not enough to actually BE competent. So someone without skill in programming can do some vibe coding, someone without skill in writing can write an article faster, etc.
But even setting aside the ethical/legal/environmental/etc. impacts, it just doesn’t work great. Programs are buggy and you don’t know how to fix them (or worse, don’t even realize they have gaping security flaws or subtle edge case conditions). Writing sounds same-y and cringe because it’s using statistics to generate the words instead of having a human voice.
There are certainly limited things when an ethical GenAI tool can be useful and increase productivity. It might give me the answer to a programming question faster than StackOverflow. But people on SO don’t generally hallucinate library functions that don’t exist. And if they did, the upvote/comment system would probably point that out.
A tool that makes up information and generates wrong answers might be useful in some situations, but it is not going to make you better or faster in general.
Rethinking the Luddites in the Age of AI
Brian Merchant’s new book, “Blood in the Machine,” argues that Luddism stood not against technology per se but for the rights of workers in the face of automation.
@Warma-Sheen said in AI PBs:
But art is hardly the only medium that AI is taking over and I don’t know why it gets romanticized as a protected class that needs saving, exempt from the same pressures that affect every other job in a capitalist system. I’d love to game, or dance, or write all day instead of working a job, but there isn’t any money in it for 99.9% of people who can do it.
You are vastly underestimating the quantity of creative people who currently make a living with their creative skills. I’m not just talking about the starving artist trope making their own music in their garage. I’m talking about the graphic designers, the technical writers, the voiceover narrators, the people who write ad copy, the animators who make the Marvel movies, the musicians, the novelists, etc. There are a tremendous number of jobs impacted by GenAI.
And hey, if the AI companies had gotten their tech through legit means, that’d still suck, but it would be different. The printing press put the monks out of business, but it did not steal their work to do so. These companies are, in my opinion, crooks. You can say copyright law is a joke but I couldn’t disagree more. I think it is a cornerstone of society. Not just for financial reasons, but for moral ones. Because it’s one thing to not make money off your art. It’s quite another to make art and then have some company steal it so THEY can make money.
@Warma-Sheen said in AI PBs:
Again, the problem isn’t AI. The problem is people.
Of course the problem is people, but imagine what the world would be like if we’d taken that stance with other technological advancements. We can’t un-invent LLMs any more than we can un-invent the steam engine, but that doesn’t mean we have to let tech companies run rampant either.
The industrial revolution caused a whole lot of chaos before we had reform and regulations to make it better. And for all the faults of the modern world, things are better in countless ways than they were in the 1870s.
Copyright law came about after the invention of the printing press, to recognize that just because you had a copy of a book, that didn’t give you the right to re-print it and sell your own copies. Those laws have evolved over time, but the core idea has remained the same: it’s not right to make money off of someone else’s creative work, and it’s not good for the world if artists have no incentive to share their art.
@catzilla said in pvp vs pvp:
Movie theaters are going to die in our lifetime.
MUs definitely will.
I’m not so sure. My one kid asked for an old Gameboy for Christmas last year because they wanted to play an old game. My other kid loves playing 20+ year old PC games. Younger generations are making vinyl records increase in popularity. Storium, a close-cousin of MUs, raised 250k in a kickstarter a few years ago, though it suffered from some stumbles in execution since. Tabletop is growing in popularity again, and it’s a small leap from there to online play.
Servers like Evennia and Ares make MUs more approachable for newer generations, so I don’t think it’s impossible for the style to continue. We’ll see how it goes, I guess.
@RedRocket I see how you omitted the part of my quote where I said “per their branding” to clarify the air-quotes around intelligent, and specified that I was talking about the algorithm/data baked into the tool. I understand quite well how these tools work. I also understand copyright law. Your “it’s a dumb tool” argument holds little weight IMHO, legally or technically.
But even setting all that aside, I don’t even care if it’s fair use. It’s wrong to take somebody’s stuff, use it to make a product that makes you a zillion dollars—a product that wouldn’t work at all without their stuff—and give them nothing in return. It is exhausting and disheartening that this is even a debate.
@catzilla said in pvp vs pvp:
There’s this hot new phrase that all the kids are saying these days. “Quality over quantity.”
Quite true. But I seriously don’t know what games RR is referring to, because I’ve been on plenty of PVE games where there were multiple scenes going on nightly and I never had trouble finding RP.
@catzilla said in pvp vs pvp:
Yes. As someone stated earlier, they’re all on Discord, JCINK, tumblr, etc.
Yeah, Storium, ForumRP, etc.
The things that differentiate those mediums from MUSHes is not the existence of PVP (many of the ones I’ve seen are mild PVP at most) but the other quirks of MUs - synchronous RP, passage of IC time linked directly to passage of OOC time, coded systems, etc.
MUDs are still doing OK, but I would argue that has less to do with PVP specifically and more to do with the overall ability to have fun independently (mobs, crafting, etc.). The PVP there is just a bonus.
Once again, this comparison is not equitable: in this case, the printer would have been programmed with the instructions for how to make five dollar bills. Like, not “you have to go find your money laundering tips elsewhere,” it’s specifically baked in.
And I guarantee that if you tried to sell a printer that could convincingly replicate $5 bills at the push of a button, you’d have treasury agents shutting you down in short order. But that has nothing to do with copyright.
That aside, we’re not talking about a dumb tool like a pencil or even a 2D or 3D printer that just blindly prints the lines/pixels/plastic you tell it. We’re talking about an “intelligent” (per their branding) tool that has an algorithm and data inside that specifically enable it to create unauthorized derivative works of copyrighted/trademarked works. ETA: If they had trained only on public domain works, it wouldn’t be able to do that. If they had licensed the content they trained on, it wouldn’t be an issue. It’s all about the design of the tool.
The difference here is that the pencil manufacturer in this scenario is literally loading up their pencils with Mickey Mouse lead. The pencils are powered and designed specifically to use Mickey Mouse’s image.
This exactly. If the manufacturer made an etch-a-sketch that knew how to draw Mickey Mouse and would draw it on command, I expect that they would be held responsible. I would certainly hope they would, at any rate.
@Jennkryst said in pvp vs pvp:
@Faraday said in pvp vs pvp:
Why are you assuming that a lack of PVP means a game with no conflict?
PVP need not be physical combat, but it feels like games shy away from social combat (everyone take a shot, role/roll discourse is back!)
Social combat between PCs is still PVP in my book. No shade if that’s your jam, but it’s not mine. I still find plenty of storytelling opportunities rife with conflict while keeping the majority of that conflict between the PCs and NPCs.
(No group of humans ever gets along 100% of the time, so there’s always some degree of conflict between PCs. But it IS entirely possible to design a successful game without making that the focus/goal.)
@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:
And how’s that working out for you? The games are empty, the players who do still log in mostly sit and idle until one of their click logs in and only then does any rp actually happen.
Worked out awesome for me actually. Many happy players having fun. Thousands of RP logs. Great stories being told. To each their own.
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
If you want to fight copyright fraud sue the people doing the fraud not the one who drew the picture.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law. The person who draws the picture of Yoda is violating the copyright (unless it falls under the very narrow definition of fair use). It doesn’t matter whether they sell it or not.
Now, in practice Disney isn’t going to come after every random fan that draws Yoda stuff. That’s impractical, a waste of their time and resources, and a PR nightmare. So they choose to focus on the people making money from it (who then have money for them to take).
I (and more importantly, many actual lawyers who specialize in this stuff) allege that by drawing pictures of Yoda and pictures derived from the pictures of Yoda (based on its training data), Midjourney is violating Disney’s copyright. AND they’re making money from it.
@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:
It’s like making a game set in the marvel cinematic universe but no one is allowed to play as the heroes or villains, they can only play normal people doing normal things. What’s the point of having a setting with extraordinary things if you are going to ignore them because it might involve conflict?
Why are you assuming that a lack of PVP means a game with no conflict? There have been plenty of MUs where PCs are only one faction and the antagonists are all NPCs. There can still be tense battles, epic betrayals, Big Darn Hero moments.
I’ll reiterate: it’s fine to enjoy PVP. But this stubborn insistence that it’s the only way to have fun is baffling. Especially when there are plenty of people here explaining why they enjoy a different thing. I may not personally like PVP, and as a game-runner I think it has more cons than pros, but I’m not baffled by why people like it. You do you. Just don’t WrongFun others who disagree.
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
A deeper understanding of the context and meaning of the image created is not a factor of its legality.
I agree. My comments about understanding and context were in response to your assertion that AI learns like a human does.
it only matters if the output can be proven to have used other people’s intellectual property in such a way that it is wholly unoriginal.
Originality is not the only thing that matters from a legal perspective. I might take the characters/setting/etc. from Lord of the Rings and use it in an entirely original manner and it could still be copyright infringement. I might also use a screencap/clip/etc. verbatim in commentary/review/etc. and could be entirely fair use. The transformative nature of a derivative work is merely one factor in a complicated test for fair use. Being transformative alone is not a “get out of jail free card” for using someone else’s copyrighted works.
The legal battle over whether AI is fair use is ongoing and messy, and will take years to sort out. We are certainy not going to settle it here amongst a bunch of internet gamers, most of whom are not lawyers, but we are nonetheless entitled to our opinions.
I personally think that GenAI is going to have an uphill battle to claim that the copyrighted works are not baked into its product somehow when it’s capable of generating something like this (source: Hollywood Reporter]:
@RedRocket said in pvp vs pvp:
Most of the people who are adamantly against PVP are also people who ran from any game where they thought it might happen before ever giving that game a chance.
If you like PVP - more power to you. I don’t have any problem with people playing/running games that do not align with my personal tastes.
But many of us in this thread are speaking of actual things that have happened. We gave the games (plural) chances (plural) and we didn’t have fun. Your characterization of the anti-PVP conclusion is very dismissive.
It’s highly unlikely staff are going to make you fight to the death over some random encounter with zero IC motivation.
I have literally had this occur on a PVP game before, and know of others who also have.
I also know the only games that I remember 30 years later are the games that there was danger of dying on. What do I remember about the “safe” games where everything is negotiated ahead of time and there are never any surprises because everything had to be approved by a +job first? Not much.
Okay? I have plenty of fun, detailed memories from the “safe” games and mostly unpleasant ones from the PVP/permadeath games. All that means is that we like different things. That doesn’t make what you like superior to what I like (or vice-versa).
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
That’s exactly what artists do when they make art. The human artist has the ability to choose which patterns to combine into a new product but it’s all alchemy! It’s just mixing things together to get something new.
Just because the output is the same as a human doesn’t mean that the process is the same. A human, an abacus, a calculator, Google Sheets, and an LLM (sometimes) can all calculate 8+6, but only the human actually understands math and can merge that understanding with an understanding of the actual world.
This reminds me of something Gary Marcus said in an article about AI hallucinations., where he explains how a ChatGPT answer hallucinated a simple fact (birthplace) about a celebrity (Shearer).
Because LLMS statistically mimic the language people have used, they often fool people into thinking that they operate like people.
But they don’t operate like people. They don’t, for example, ever fact check (as humans sometimes, when well motivated, do). They mimic the kinds of things of people say in various contexts. And that’s essentially all they do.
You can think of the whole output of an LLM as a little bit like Mad Libs.
[Human H] is a [Nationality N] [Profession P] known for [Y].
By sheer dint of crunching unthinkably large amounts of data about words co-occurring together in vast of corpora of text, sometimes that works out. Shearer and Spinal Tap co-occur in enough text that the systems gets that right. But that sort of statistical approximations lacks reliability. It is often right, but also routinely wrong. For example, some of the groups of people that Shearer belongs to, such as entertainers, actors, comedians, musicians and so forth includes many people from Britain, and so words for entertainers and the like co-occur often with words like British. To a next-token predictor, a phrase like Harry Shearer lives in a particular part of a multidimensional space. Words in that space are often followed by words like “British actor”. So out comes a hallucination.
That is just not how human brains operate.