MudMan

I don’t disagree on principle, but I do think it requires some thought.

Also, that’s still a pretty significant backstop. You basically would need models to have a way to check generated content for copyright, in the way Youtube does, for instance. And that is already a big debate, whether enforcing that requirement is affordable to anybody but the big companies.

But hey, maybe we can solve both issues the same way. We sure as hell need a better way to handle mass human-produced content and its interactions with IP. The current system does not work and it grandfathers in the big players in UGC, so whatever we come up with should work for both human and computer-generated content.

That’s not “coming”, it’s an ongoing process that has been going on for a couple hundred years, and it absolutely does not require ChatGPT.

People genuinely underestimate how many of these things have been an ongoing concern. A lot like crypto isn’t that different to what you can do with a server, “AI” isn’t a magic key that unlocks automation. I don’t even know how this mental model works. Is the idea that companies who are currently hiring millions of copywriters will just rely on automated tools? I get that yeah, a bunch of call center people may get removed (again, a process that has been ongoing for decades), but how is compensating Facebook for scrubbing their social media posts for text data going to make that happen less?

Again, I think people don’t understand the parameters of the problem, which is different from saying that there is no problem here. If anything the conversation is a net positive in that we should have been having it in 2010 when Amazon and Facebook and Google were all-in on this process already through both ML tools and other forms of data analysis.

I’m gonna say those circumstances changed when digital copies and the Internet became a thing, but at least we’re having the conversation now, I suppose.

I agree that ML image and text generation can create something that breaks copyright. You for sure can duplicate images or use copyrighted characterrs. This is also true of Youtube videos and Tiktoks and a lot of human-created art. I think it’s a fascinated question to ponder whether the infraction is in what the tool generates (i.e. did it make a picture of Spider-Man and sell it to you for money, whcih is under copyright and thus can’t be used that way) or is the infraction in the ingest that enables it to do that (i.e. it learned on pictures of Spider-Man available on the Internet, and thus all output is tainted because the images are copyrighted).

The first option makes more sense to me than the second, but if I’m being honest I don’t know if the entire framework makes sense at this point at all.

A lot of this can be traced back to the invention of photography, which is a fun point of reference, if one goes to dig up the debate at the time.

In any case, the idea that humans can only produce so fast for so long and somehow that cleans the channel just doesn’t track. We are flooded by low quality content enabled by social media. There’s seven billion of us two or three billion of those are on social platforms and a whole bunch of the content being shared in channels is created by using corporate tools to make stuff by pointing phones at it. I guarantee that people will still go to museums to look at art regardless of how much cookie cutter AI stuff gets shared.

However, I absolutely wouldn’t want a handful of corporations to have the ability to empower their employed artists with tools to run 10x faster than freelance artists. That is a horrifying proposition. Art is art. The difficulty isn’t in making the thing technically (say hello, Marcel Duchamp, I bet you thought you had already litgated this). Artists are gonna art, but it’s important that nobody has a monopoly on the tools to make art.

It’s not right to say that ML output isn’t good at practical tasks. It is and it’s already in use and has been for ages. The conversation about these is guided by the relatively anecdotal fact that chatbots and image generation got good so this stuff went viral, but ML models are being used for a bunch of practical uses, from speeding up repetitive, time consuming tasks (e.g. cleaning up motion capture, facial modelling or lip animation in games and movies) or specialized tasks (so much science research is using ML tools these days).

Now, a lot of those are done using fully owned datasets, but not all, and the ramifications there are also important. People dramatically overestimate the impact of trash product flooding channels (which is already the case, as you say) and dramatically underestimate the applications of the underlying tech beyond the couple of viral apps they only got access to recently.

Yep. The effect of this as currently framed is that you get data ownership clauses in EULAs forever and only major data brokers like Google or Meta can afford to use this tech at all. It’s not even a new scenario, it already happened when those exact companies were pushing facial recognition and other big data tools.

I agree that the basics of modern copyright don’t work great with ML in the mix (or with the Internet in the mix, while we’re at it), but people are leaning on the viral negativity to slip by very unwanted consequences before anybody can make a case for good use of the tech.

I think viral outrage aside, there is a very open question about what constitutes fair use in this application. And I think the viral outrage misunderstands the consequences of enforcing the notion that you can’t use openly scrapable online data to build ML models.

Effectively what the copyright argument does here is make it so that ML models are only legally allowed to make by Meta, Google, Microsoft and maybe a couple of other companies. OpenAI can say whatever, I’m not concerned about them, but I am concerned about open source alternatives getting priced out of that market. I am also concerned about what it does to previously available APIs, as we’ve seen with Twitter and Reddit.

I get that it’s fashionable to hate on these things, and it’s fashionable to repeat the bit of misinformation about models being a copy or a collage of training data, but there are ramifications here people aren’t talking about and I fear we’re going to the worst possible future on this, where AI models are effectively ubiquitous but legally limited to major data brokers who added clauses to own AI training rights from their billions of users.

OK, what I’m increasingly getting from this thread is that one-off kinda scammy touristy places get over-reported and maybe mixed up with outdoor stand-alone toilets? Stuff gets presented like “in EU you have to pay for public toilets” in clickbaity travel articles, but it seems to be more like people were in one scammy place that was chargning and that’s what gets talked about? Maybe I just don’t go to enough tourist traps.

Where was this? The times I’ve been in France I was there with friends and I’ve been in Paris for maybe four hours in my entire life, but that sounds like it was either in the 90s or you were being scammed in more ways than the toilet.

I mean, what I can tell you is I’d definitely found a different toilet unless this was a free-standing outdoors latrine and I was in a hell of a hurry, just based on the fee, let alone the squatting toilet thing.

As fas as I know there’s nothing keeping restaurants or bars from charging to use the toilets. Also as far as I know, and I’ve used public toilets in restaurants and bars in most of the countries you list many, many times over several decades, those are exceedingly rare and absolutely not the norm. That was true 40 years ago and it’s true today.

The type of toilet is a different thing and yeah, until maybe the late 90s a lot of Europe was no stranger to squatting toilets. Honestly, for pubs and places where you’re mostly disposing of the drinks you’re having, I’m not even sure they’re a bad idea. Less accessible and whatnot, but I’m not sure a sit down toilet with a carefully developed patina of beer urine developed over years of sloppy drunken aim is a safer or cleaner proposition.

Yeah, no, me too. I’ve peed in a couple of those in just the past few months, and in hundreds in my life, and I haven’t paid money once. Like I said elsewhere, the one time I’ve seen a paid toilet in a place it was a public transportation hub and both I and other patrons seemed full-on outraged.

Clearly we have experience in different places and it seems like this is a regional thing. I just don’t know which regions that is.

Right. That tracks with my experience. So when Americans are all weirded out by “paid toilets” in Europe, do they mean those? I always read that as them finding they had to pay for toilets in businesses or restaurants.

I’ve been in the UK dozens of times and never seen those. I guess I just don’t pee out that often, but in the pubs and restaurants I’ve been to it’s never come up.

I’m not entirely sure of the logic of why somebody would be cleaner after paying 50 cents than otherwise. It seems like a move to keep away homeless people, but even then, it’s not that hard to secure fifty cents and unless they have a timer going in there, which seems ill-advised, it wouldn’t help either.

In any case, I’ve only ever seen them in outdoor latrines and rarely in public transportation hubs. They are definitely not the norm anywhere I’ve been.

Yeah, right? That’s my experience, too. I feel like outdoor latrines charge like a coin, presumably to keep people from squatting in there, but most places don’t even have those. Maybe otherwise people are conflating customer-only toilets with paid toilets? I’ve never seen a paid toilet in an airport, though, and only once in a train station, and people seemed to be quite pissed about it and using the restaurants’ facilities instead.

I’ve never been charged for a mall toilet in Europe. But hey, that’s the problem with saying “Europe”. I can tick off maybe a copule dozen malls in maybe three or four countries, so we only have like twenty or thirty countries left to verify, assuming the practice is set at the national level and not regional.

In my mind this was a German thing that people kept saying was a European thing, but I haven’t peed in enough public places in Germany to tell you.

Where is this mystical European place where people charge for toilets? I swear, I hear this all the time when it comes to US vs EU differences and I don’t know what they mean.

I mean, I know places that have toilets just for customers, so you need to ask for a key or a code to use it when you’re there, I know of a couple of cities that charge a nominal fee, like a quarter for outdoor latrines for some reason, and I know of one specific train station that licensed toilets out to a private company and they tried to charge for them, which is very shitty and everybody hated it.

The idea of restaurants charging extra to pee is not a thing in the European places where I’ve been/lived.

So much. Yes. How do we all agree on this and yet it hasn’t sunk in after twenty five years?

I mean, Blender got it. Be like Blender.

Gimp never even needed to be as robust as Photoshop. All anybody needs is a OSS alternative to casually touch up a photo every now and then if you aren’t forced by life to be one of Adobe’s hostages. Just give me a vaguely Photoshop-like thing with a semi-competent context aware filter that isn’t physically painful to use. Kryta and others will pick up the slack for all the painting stuff.

It’s so bad for Widnows handhelds, laptops and tablets I’ve resorted to re-enabling hybernation and using that instead.

Which I’m sure will be disabled as an option at some random point in time with no warning.

Yes, I’ve tried Krita. Krita is great. Go Krita. Krita is a painting program, though, not a full Photoshop replacement.

As, you know, we said in the post right above this one.