this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
111 points (86.3% liked)

Technology

59148 readers
2773 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Painters replicate variations of their training pieces too. You're pretending there's a difference between human inspired and training inspired and that you should get paid for that inspiration in one case just cuz "big corp"

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because there is a difference. A computer does not learn or understand anything. Human beings can transform a concept. A LLM or other generative AI does not transform a concept at all.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

So if I ask it to create a story about a cow juggling bowling balls, it was not creating an original story? Just spitting out stories it has heard of before?

Edit: missed a 'not'.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

It’s spitting out variations of the statistical results based on your input parameter. It reorganizes ideas and reorganizes the stories it has seen into something else. That’s not transforming the data by adding something new, rather just retrofitting existing data to sound like it’s creating something new

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

retrofitting existing data to sound like it’s creating something new.

What the difference? That is basically how new human ideas are formed. Did you think you add completely new ideas everytime you transform your previous knowledge?

But since you're so confident in your claims, I'm sure it should be easy to prove the following ChatGPT output is not new and can be easily traced back to its training data:

Prompt: Create a short poem about a cow juggling bowling balls on a boat

Output: In a boat on gentle waves it sways, A cow, not grazing in greenish bays. Hooves deftly juggle, balls in flight, Bowling orbs, a whimsical sight.

Bovine artist, on the sea's embrace, Balancing spheres with tranquil grace. Ocean breeze, a playful gale, A cow's performance, a quirky tale.