Clint_L
Hero
I've used it for plenty of things. Worked for me. Doesn't mean it's replacing me, though. Just one more tool in the belt.I played around with chat for something I am writing, and it was worthless. So not replacing me yet.
I've used it for plenty of things. Worked for me. Doesn't mean it's replacing me, though. Just one more tool in the belt.I played around with chat for something I am writing, and it was worthless. So not replacing me yet.
That was maybe what I was hoping, though what I am writing is esoteric enough, probably too much, for it.I've used it for plenty of things. Worked for me. Doesn't mean it's replacing me, though. Just one more tool in the belt.
The principle being stood on by many of us is that AI is 'learning from' or imitating art without the permission and buy-in of the artists, so option 1 is not mutually exclusive with the principle in question. In fact, the whole premise is that the AI is learning from/imitating only those things that they have principled access to.I am surprised by the high number of yes vote here (especially on the first item, totalizaing 40+% so far) because given the tone of the discussions, I'd have thought the local crowd was much more against AI on principles rather than because of the legal uncertainties about scraping the Internet.
I kind of think ethics are relativeI dont think most people care about ethic's in their consumption.
That kind of reminded me of Atlanta Nights.
Human intelligence is quite different from Machine Learning. Machines lack free-will, desires and experiences. They cannot create novel ideas nor even internalize existing ideas. Training models are just a pure data derivative, at most a glorified -though quite sophisticated- sweat-off-the-brow product.I am not entirely convinced by requiring AI to have to be trained on public domain works, to be honest. It depends on the nature of the AI. Because human intelligences are trained on plenty of work that isn't in the public domain. I'm a big music buff, and almost all of pop music is pretty derivative.
Human intelligence is quite different from Machine Learning. Machines lack free-will, desires and experiences. They cannot create novel ideas nor even internalize existing ideas. Training models are just a pure data derivative, at most a glorified -though quite sophisticated- sweat-off-the-brow product.
I'm just getting into learning some music theory. And yes, there's a lot of derivative and formulaic stuff, and a lot of inspiration comes from current music that isn't public domain. But only a human can associate certain notes in a certain rhythm with an emotion they might not even be able to put a name to. (And the irony is that music-making AI's didn't have to be trained on anything but public domain stuff to do interesting things and be of use)