Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 9314837" data-attributes="member: 6801845">Comparing Napster to what AI does is kind of comparing apples and oranges.&nbsp; Napster took a song they didn't pay for without modification and allowed people to listen to it.&nbsp; Art (and text) is used to build up pattern recognition and associations.&nbsp; Much like a person does reading books, studying existing art or for that matter, interacting with the world around them.&nbsp; AI couldn't do what it does without input, but it is not simply copying art.&nbsp; Ideally you could compensate the original artist somehow but that would be an impossible task, the myriad images come from all over and there's not really a way to trace it back.LLMs don't think like humans do of course, and even if we ever get a true AGI it likely won't think like a human either.&nbsp; But it reminds me of the argument that people are somehow unique and special animals that we &quot;think&quot; different that any other animal on the planet.&nbsp; Which the more we learn about animal cognition, the more we realize it's not true.&nbsp; It may be a matter of scale and scope but our brains are not fundamentally different. We all just take in input, process it to learn to recognize patterns and structures.&nbsp; AI does the same, just in a far more limited scope and using different methods.&nbsp; It doesn't think, doesn't understand what the images represent to us, but we only recognize what the image is and give it meaning because of our own built in pattern recognition processes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 9314837, member: 6801845"] Comparing Napster to what AI does is kind of comparing apples and oranges. Napster took a song they didn't pay for without modification and allowed people to listen to it. Art (and text) is used to build up pattern recognition and associations. Much like a person does reading books, studying existing art or for that matter, interacting with the world around them. AI couldn't do what it does without input, but it is not simply copying art. Ideally you could compensate the original artist somehow but that would be an impossible task, the myriad images come from all over and there's not really a way to trace it back. LLMs don't think like humans do of course, and even if we ever get a true AGI it likely won't think like a human either. But it reminds me of the argument that people are somehow unique and special animals that we "think" different that any other animal on the planet. Which the more we learn about animal cognition, the more we realize it's not true. It may be a matter of scale and scope but our brains are not fundamentally different. We all just take in input, process it to learn to recognize patterns and structures. AI does the same, just in a far more limited scope and using different methods. It doesn't think, doesn't understand what the images represent to us, but we only recognize what the image is and give it meaning because of our own built in pattern recognition processes. [/QUOTE]

Verification