OpenAI just admitted it can’t identify AI-generated text. That’s bad for the internet and it could be really bad for AI models.::In January, OpenAI launched a system for identifying AI-generated text. This month, the company scrapped it.

  • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Sure but lets say you try to solve this problem. What’s the first thing you think a coordinated group could do, get sensible regulations about AI, or overthrow global capitalism. Its framed the way it is because unless you want ro revolt that’s the framework we’re gonna have to use to deal with it. I suppose we could alwyas do nothing to AI specifically and focus on just overthrowing capitalism, but during that time lots of harm will come to lots of workers because of AI use. I dont think anticapitalism has reached a critical mass (we need this for any real sustem wide attacks on and alternatives to capitalism) so I think dealing with this AI problem and trying to let everyone else know about how it’s really a capitalism thing would do more to build support and avert harm to workers. I hate that its like that too but those choices are basically the real options we have moving forward from my pov.

    • Gutless2615
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      You tell me what “sensible regulations about AI” are that don’t hurt small artists and creators more than they centralize the major players and enrich copyright hoarding, copyright-maximalist corporations. (Seriously, this isn’t bait. I’ve been wracking my mind on the issue for months. Because the only serious proposals so far are expanding the already far-too-broad copyright rights to things like covering training or granting artists more rights to their work during their lifetime - something that will only hurt small artists) We desperately need more fair use, not less. The only “sensible regulations” that we should and could be talking about is some form of UBI. That’s it.

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        UBI is a bandaid that doesn’t solve the core issues of production under capitalism, the people with capital still control production, still make more money than eveyone else and still have more money and power to use influencing the politicians that write the laws surrounding UBI. And expecting me to solve the AI problem in a comment section is like me asking you to implement UBI in a way that landlords dont just jack up rent or business dont inflate prices with more cash and demand floating around, also whats your plan for when the level of UBI legislated , or planned increases in UBI is no longer sufficient enough to pay for housing food and other necessities? What do you do to counter the fact that the capitists still have more access to politicians and media empires they can use to discredit and remove UBI?

        • Gutless2615
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          UBI is a bandaid, sure. But bandaids actually help; “sensible AI regulations” - a nothing phrase that will most likely materialize as yet another expansion of copyright — will actively make things worse. UBI is achievable, and can be expanded on once it’s enacted. You establish protections and regulations that actually help people, and dare opposition to ever try to take them away; instead of carrying water for copyright maximalists along the way.

          • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            a nothing phrase that will most likely materialize as yet another expansion of copyright

            Exactly. We need to break apart copyright with a crowbar. It’s a broken system that only benefits the rich, and AI has the opportunity to turn the entire system into a pile of unenforceable garbage.

          • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Why does legislation or regulation surrounding AI necessarily have to be copyright maxamilism but UBI regulations are somehow in some undescribed way going to be strong enough to prevent lobbying from the people who still control the mean of production? You’re arguement gets to use the magic regulations that don’t get challenged or changed, but my arguement is stuck to the one mainstream idea that has people worried?

            • Gutless2615
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Because those are the only “sensible AI regulations” seriously being talked about. Tell me any other actual regulatory schemes that are being proposed that aren’t, and I’ll be happy to talk about those, and likely support them. I’m not getting the hostility, btw. fwiw this (getting stronger consumer protection laws passed) is literally my job; I’m going to go out on a limb here and say we probably agree with more than we disagree, based on your comment history. Obviously UBI won’t be enough to - will never be enough to - oust capitalists from having an outsized influence in policy, but what I don’t support at all are regulations that would further centralize the corporate IP holders and tech companies that would actually benefit from the copyright maximalist proposals currently being bandied about by the fear mongering anti generative AI discourse.

              Fundamentally we’re not going to copyright our way out of the externalities AI brings with it.

              • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                My arguement is not limited to the only regulations being currently talked about any more than your arguement is limited by what types of UBI are currently talked about because im not hearing any talk on UBI.

                • Gutless2615
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Friend you haven’t proposed ANY thing except “sensible” regulations. I’ve asked you to elaborate on what those might be, but I’m cautioning against the regulatory schemes currently being proposed and considered. Maybe I’m too in the weeds on this issue — again, literally my job — but I can tell you the only proposals actually being discussed right now are copyright maximalist.

                  • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    11 months ago

                    Because the western world has no other framework for intellectual property other than copyright claims, and the people who write the laws and discuss the solutions are the people already at the top who have property to protect. If copyright in it’s entirety disappeared tomorrow with nothing in it’s stead the very first people to lose and lose the most will be the small artists, because there’s nothing to stop people or companies with massive resource pools just steamrolling over them, in fact I can’t see that move(eliminating all copyright) doing anything but accelerating a monopoly forming to whichever company can steal and distribute art the best. My best guess says if you try to solve that problem you’ll find solutions that will at least alleviate the AI problem for smaller creators. But again I don’t know what you’re expecting of me, If I had the regulation all figured out, I probably wouldn’t just be jawing about it on Lemmy, and you yourself said you cannot figure it out and it’s related to your field. Because right now like you said, more copyright will slowly strangle creators, and like I just said no copyright will let them be steamrolled over by anyone who can sell or distribute it for a lower price than them. UBI make sure the artist doesn’t die. Great honestly, better than just letting people drop, but if all the artists work can simply be stolen for profit by those that didn’t make it, and they have to subsist on the payments everyone gets, then there’s really no such thing as an artist in terms of vocation anymore, nor would there be enough opportunities to profit from your own artistic work. I don’t know the solution any more than you do, but to me I don’t think UBI is good enough because I believe being an artist is labor worth being paid for. I think we need something targeted at the AI problem, not something reactionary, and not something necessarily targeting the AI itself, perhaps targeting the relationship between people who create art, people who distribute it, and people who profit from it, since often times those aren’t all the same person.

    • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      get sensible regulations about AI

      There’s no such thing as “sensible regulations” for AI. AI is a technological advantage. Any time you regulate that advantage, other groups that don’t have those regulations will fuck you over. Even if you start talking about regulations, the corpos will take over and fuck you over with regulations that only hurt the little guy.

      Hell, even without regulations, we’re already seeing this on the open-source vs. capitalism front. Google admitted that it lost some advantages because of open-source AI tools, and now these fucking cunts are trying to hold on to their technology as close as possible. This is technology that needs to be free and open-source, and we’re going to see a fierce battle with multi-billion-dollar capitalistic corporations clawing back whatever technological gains OSS acquired, until you’re forced to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to use a goddamn chess bot.

      GPLv3 is key here, and we need to force these fuckers into permanent copyleft licenses that they can’t revoke. OpenAI is not open, StabilityAI is not the future, and Google is not your friend.

      • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Isnt forcing a copyleft licence exactly a regulation that would be sensible though? So why wouldn’t regulations and legislation work if thats your solution too?

        • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          There’s never been a bill that had the word “copyleft” or “GNU Public License” on it at all, and thanks to corpo lobbyists, there probably never will be. We have to be realistic here, and the only realistic option is to encourage as much protected open-source software on the subject as possible.