Authors using a new tool to search a list of 183,000 books used to train AI are furious to find their works on the list.

  • FaceDeer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, now you know; software can be inspired by other people’s works. That’s what AIs are instructed to do during their training phase.

    • ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Does that mean software can also be afraid, or angry? What about happy software? Saying software can be inspired is like saying a rock can feel pain.

      • FaceDeer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Software can do a lot of things that rocks can’t do, that’s not a good analogy.

        Whether software can feel “pain” depends a lot on your definitions, but I think there are circumstances in which software can be said to feel pain. Simple worms can sense painful stimuli and react to it, a program can do the same thing.

        We’ve reached the point where the simplistic prejudices about artificial intelligence common in science fiction are no longer useful guidelines for talking about real artificial intelligence. Sci-fi writers have long assumed that AIs couldn’t create art and now it turns out it’s one of the things they’re actually rather good at.

    • BURN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Software cannot be “inspired”

      AIs in their training stages are simply just running extreme statistical analysis on the input material. They’re not “learning” they’re not “inspired” they’re not “understanding”

      The anthropomorphism of these models is a major problem. They are not human, they don’t learn like humans.

        • BURN@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, that’s just flat out wrong

          Hallucinations happen when there’s gaps in the training data and it’s just statistically picking what’s most likely to be next. It becomes incomprehensible when the model breaks down and doesn’t know where to go. However, the model doesn’t see a difference between hallucinating nonsense and a coherent sentence. They’re exactly the same to the model.

          The model does not learn or understand anything. It statistically knows what the next word is. It doesn’t need to have seen something before to know that. It doesn’t understand what it’s outputting, it’s just outputting a long string that is gibberish to it.

          I have formal training in AI and 90%+ of what I see people claiming AI can do is a complete misunderstanding of the tech.