> oh really? because that’s not how they’re being advertised or marketed. they’re being touted as oracles that can answer any and all of your questions
No, they're being advertised as useful tools. Obviously the tool salesmen are gonna inflate their capabilities, but in the past few years I've never heard ANYONE important make the claim that they're always correct. I've seen that used as an attack pretty often though.
> ai psychosis is a documented and real phenomena. people fall into rabbit holes because of the sycophantic nature of the models.
Yes but it's not like random otherwise healthy people do this which seems to be what you're implying. There are clearly other risk factors at play here and it's not obvious how much the AI is contributing. Psychosis isn't new and AI hasn't moved the needle much.
> and the models are sycophantic not because it makes them better at answering questions, the sycophancy makes them worse at that. they’re made more sycophantic because it gets people to engage with the models more and more.
Or... people just happen to like it when the model speaks in a friendly voice and that desire is impossible to separate out when you're figuring out if an LLM's response is good.
Don't try and put this on American companies when you can just go to r/MyBoyfriendIsAI and see pretty plainly that lots of people insist of syncophancy. Obviously this isn't good or healthy, but it's not wrong or nefarious. It's certainly not an America-only phenomenon.
Nobody would expect their coffee to be almost boiling, everybody should expect an LLM to give slop answers from time to time.
Even Steve Jobs died early because he took vibes-based advice instead of just listening to doctors. You can snark about capitalism all you want, but at some point people are in charge of their own health.
Comcast does data caps everywhere except places where its customers have alternatives. It's insane that they're allowed to charge monthly for providing a speed and then also set the data caps at like ~3h of continuous full use.
No he's got a point, if your friend and OpenAI both preface their statements with "I'm not a doctor but..." then there is no reason for it to be ok when one does this and not the other.
We're several years into having LLMs be publically available. If people still don't understand their limitations it's not the models' fault. This situation in my mind is kind of similar to a random person googling symptoms and then brainlessly reading the first website they find.
I think that argument is pretty persuasive, actually, because I use these things all the time and am well aware they're prone to bullshit. I cannot fathom someone with unstable blood pressure and other unexplained symptoms not going to see an actual doctor JUST BECAUSE ChatGPT told them they were fine, and it makes even less sense that anyone would listen to a soulless machine talking about "God's plan." FFS, when you have serious medical symptoms, JUST GO TO THE ER. They get plenty of people convinced they swallowed their earbuds while sleeping, someone with fluctuating blood pressure is so much more serious.
If the argument you're making is "some people are too stupid to be trusted with an LLM" then you should say that, but otherwise this is crazy.
Because most authors don't make a ton of money from their books, and even a relatively low settlement from Anthropic is a large enough sum that they're OK with taking it.
I'm telling you what the law plainly says. I personally think that the exceptions for fair use made sense before the transformer was invented, and they still make sense now.
The two main problems with copyright also haven't changed: copyright lasts too long and is too expensive to defend.
> on the other hand the complete dismissal of copyright by AI labs
Courts keep ruling over and over that an LLM trained on copyrighted works qualifies as a transformative work and is therefore fair use. They don't have to dismiss copyright law, this has always been allowed.
The only thing they get in trouble for is pirating the works to get their hands on them.
This is a pretty common clause when a company open sources something that was previously locked away. The AOM AV1 codec has a similar rule for its patent pool to discourage trolling.
"You are violating the DRY principle with code like <blahblah>. Look through the codebase in depth, and identify possible places to consolidate common logic."
Yeah, there's no substitute for taste, but this is not that big of a deal. I infinitely prefer repeated code to crappy, leaky abstractions. Let the model generate some slop, then tighten it up either by hand or with more prompting.
> Oh, yeah, you're just wrong. The law explicity states that copyright belongs to HUMAN authors. Not AI. And courts have repeatedly ruled AI generated work cannot be copyrighted. You're the one who seems a little confused.
No, I'm not confused. Go actually read your own link before you get condescending with me:
> Assuming that copyrightable works require a human author, works created by humans with the assistance of generative AI might be entitled to copyright protection depending on the nature of human involvement in the creative process.
The only settled legal finding is that copyright must be assigned to human beings.
The guidance of the Copyright Registration Office is not legally binding, which is where I think you may be confused. You do not need to register copyrights because they exist intrinsically when you create works.
If push comes to shove, you prove this in civil court to sue someone. They can argue a fair use defense. For example, training LLMs on copyrighted text has been repeatedly ruled fair use, as a transformative work.
The law is quite clear that how a work was created does not matter for copyright. All that matters is whether or not a thing qualifies as an original work of authorship. The boundaries of what AI-generated work can be copyrighted will be tested in court in the coming years.
No but it's a useful shorthand to describe a type of bad writing.
I also think that people should focus on substance and not if AI was used, but AI writes like shit and I find myself retching a bit when I have to read long AI-written documents. Do they say something useful? Maybe, but when my eyes are glazing over because it's just so exhausting trying to parse what's written, I can't tell.
I certainly think less of people when they have such poor taste that they think writing like that is acceptable.
Yeah, I'm not sure the level of trust extended to a company like Amazon or Google will also be extended to one run by Elon Musk, who is notorious for not respecting terms like this.
I don't know where you get this idea. A human being who used AI to generate something may actually claim copyright over the product.
You might be getting confused with a court case that ruled that AI could not have sole copyright, but that case just says that only a human being can hold copyright.
Because this isn't clearly against the law, nor should it be. If websites want to ban based on IP address lots of innocent users get caught in the cross-fire.
I'm not sure what the solution would look like - maybe Cloudflare's payment required for requests beyond a certain limit? But I think that the world needs user freedoms now more than ever.
I mean, there's a difference between "my IDE opens 0.1s faster" and "my desktop can now write my code for me" and only one of those justifies increasing RAM production.