No, they're already training it with its own dogfood. They don't need contractors for that, because they can do that themselves. They're just also paying people to add human data.

People seem to only have memory that goes back two years.

We went to war with Iraq due to faulty intel. No AI was involved at all, at least not in the modern sense of the term. Just a human expert hallucinating a bioweapons lab from a blurry photo.

Russia almost nuked us due to a faulty machine sending a false positive about a nuclear attack. Definitely not AI.

OpenAI's failures prove that the corporations are the only ones that can be trusted!

I'm not sure what you mean when you imply that AI doesn't understand storytelling. It's not *great* at it, but if you formalize the process (outlines, character profiles, world details, external notes, and so on) you can get something coherent if you use a decent AI.

If artificial superintelligence is a thing, we're going to need it to defend against it.

Honestly, I don't see this law passing anyway.

/thread

Here's your comment:

I hate Donald Trump, but I agree with this particular decision.

That wasn't hard.

Legally or morally.

I'm really surprised how many people around here think it does. It doesn't require consent when a human does it, and it doesn't require consent when a computer does it.

Scaping has never been stealing, of course. It wasn't then, and it isn't now, even with all of the whinging people are doing about AI training data.

The giant brass cojones on Google for suing over that, though...

> That feels like an odd thing to be frightened of. It's not Mars where there are minutes of latency. Why would the Philippines - specifically - be any more (or less) concerning than if the drivers were in a building a kilometer away from the vehicle?

Half-way across the world and thus more prone to latency spikes. Not something you want when you need to be able to react quickly. Or have you never played a game on a server on the other side of the pacific?

This is uselessly metaphysical.

If Meta bought all the books they trained their AI on, it seems to me they should be allowed to do that. If you've purchased a copy of a book, you're allowed to analyze it with a computer.

Seems like it'd be a huge cost savings. And frankly, AI is more ethical than a sociopath, so it's a win-win.

...through fear-mongering and telling congress that people shouldn't have access to AI that OpenAI doesn't control.

I figured someone would bring up the myth of "the myth of talent". The art community is the absolute worst about this. To be good at art, you need both innate talent and practice. People who have that innate talent think that practice will get everyone there -- believe me, it doesn't. The reason you think it does is because of survivorship bias. Nobody asks me how I got to not be able to do anything art-wise except create copies of what I can see, so they don't ever find out that I practiced for decades and didn't get anywhere.

As it is, computers and programming are my skill, so I'm using that skill to generate art. Anybody who whines about me doing it that way is gatekeeping.