Then I guess my original point of agency being an essential element in human learning had nothing to do with your conversation about how AI learns like humans. Carry on.
@zbyte64 from what I understand, you’re referring to the process at scale—the amount of information the AI can take in is inhuman—which I’m not disagreeing with
None of which is relevant to my original point: the scale of their operations, which has already been used countless times in copyright law
The scale at which they operate and their intention to profit is the basis for their infringement, how they’re doing it would be largely irrelevant in a copyright case, is my point
I don’t understand how when I say “agency” or “an aspect of the process” one would think I’m talking about the volume of information and not the quality.
@zbyte64 1) In no way is quality a part of that equation and 2) In what other contexts is quality ever a part of the equation? I mean I can go look at some Monets and paint some shitty water lillies, is that somehow problematic?
@zbyte64 data quality, again, was out of the scope of what I was talking about originally
Which, again, was that legal precedent would suggest that the *how* is largely irrelevant in copyright cases, they’re mostly focused on *why* and the *scale of the operation*
I’m not getting sued for copyright infringement by the NYT because I used inspect element to delete content to read behind their paywall, OpenAI is
@zbyte64 do I somehow owe Cheverny money because I did that? Would someone who did it better not owe them money? Where does quality come into play when determining infringement?
@zbyte64 I still have yet to understand how your original comment fits into the original conversation of infringement, now I’m really just along for the ride
@zbyte64 you’re getting away from the original conversation
Then I guess my original point of agency being an essential element in human learning had nothing to do with your conversation about how AI learns like humans. Carry on.
@zbyte64 we’re saying the same thing
It’s a matter scale, not process
I’m literally saying (an aspect of) process matters, how are we saying the same thing?
@zbyte64 from what I understand, you’re referring to the process at scale—the amount of information the AI can take in is inhuman—which I’m not disagreeing with
None of which is relevant to my original point: the scale of their operations, which has already been used countless times in copyright law
The scale at which they operate and their intention to profit is the basis for their infringement, how they’re doing it would be largely irrelevant in a copyright case, is my point
I don’t understand how when I say “agency” or “an aspect of the process” one would think I’m talking about the volume of information and not the quality.
@zbyte64 1) In no way is quality a part of that equation and 2) In what other contexts is quality ever a part of the equation? I mean I can go look at some Monets and paint some shitty water lillies, is that somehow problematic?
If we’re using your paintings as training data for a Monet copy, then it could be.
Are we even talking about AI if we’re saying data quality doesn’t matter?
@zbyte64 data quality, again, was out of the scope of what I was talking about originally
Which, again, was that legal precedent would suggest that the *how* is largely irrelevant in copyright cases, they’re mostly focused on *why* and the *scale of the operation*
I’m not getting sued for copyright infringement by the NYT because I used inspect element to delete content to read behind their paywall, OpenAI is
@zbyte64 do I somehow owe Cheverny money because I did that? Would someone who did it better not owe them money? Where does quality come into play when determining infringement?
@zbyte64 I still have yet to understand how your original comment fits into the original conversation of infringement, now I’m really just along for the ride