this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
19 points (85.2% liked)
Canada
7206 readers
323 users here now
What's going on Canada?
Communities
๐ Meta
๐บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Northwest Territories
- Nova Scotia
- Nunavut
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Quebec
- Saskatchewan
- Yukon
๐๏ธ Cities / Local Communities
- Calgary (AB)
- Edmonton (AB)
- Greater Sudbury (ON)
- Halifax (NS)
- Hamilton (ON)
- Kootenays (BC)
- London (ON)
- Mississauga (ON)
- Montreal (QC)
- Nanaimo (BC)
- Oceanside (BC)
- Ottawa (ON)
- Port Alberni (BC)
- Regina (SK)
- Saskatoon (SK)
- Thunder Bay (ON)
- Toronto (ON)
- Vancouver (BC)
- Vancouver Island (BC)
- Victoria (BC)
- Waterloo (ON)
- Winnipeg (MB)
๐ Sports
Hockey
- List of All Teams: Post on /c/hockey
- General Community: /c/Hockey
- Calgary Flames
- Edmonton Oilers
- Montrรฉal Canadiens
- Ottawa Senators
- Toronto Maple Leafs
- Vancouver Canucks
- Winnipeg Jets
Football (NFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Football (CFL)
- List of All Teams:
unknown
Baseball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Blue Jays
Basketball
- List of All Teams:
unknown - Toronto Raptors
Soccer
- List of All Teams:
unknown - General Community: /c/CanadaSoccer
- Toronto FC
๐ป Universities
๐ต Finance / Shopping
- Personal Finance Canada
- BAPCSalesCanada
- Canadian Investor
- Buy Canadian
- Quebec Finance
- Churning Canada
๐ฃ๏ธ Politics
- Canada Politics
- General:
- By Province:
๐ Social and Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The training of an attention network is not meaningfully different from training a perceptron, which was invented in 1957. Interconnected networks of computers date back to 1969. finger captured the spirt of Twitter in 1971. The businesses may have changed, but the concepts you speak of were very well understood in 1980.
A contract precisely specifying "generative AI", "Twitter", and "the Internet" would be silly even today. That would be like the DVD specifying "You may only watch this while sitting on a Chesterfield flower-print couch in your living room on a RCA CRT television". My understanding from you is that the intent is simply to prohibit non-humans reading the work. That is something that could have been easily written in 1980.
Hell, robots doing human-like things was front in centre in popular culture in the 1980s. It would have been impossible to not realize that robots reading books was an almost certain future. To act surprised now that it is happening is an act not selling itself.
There is a massive difference between AI tech in the 70s and today. The scale we're able to achieve is orders of magnitude beyond what was dreamed of. These modern issues were conceived as taking much longer to arrive and giving the legal system more time to catch up. Our legal system can force a common baseline of behavior on our new technology and that will be necessary to have a healthy balance of power.
Not really. We've learned a few tricks along the way, but the fundamentals of neural networks have not changed at all. The most significant progress AI has made is in seeing compute become orders of magnitude faster. Which we knew, with reasonable confidence, was going to happen. Moore's Law and all that.
While I disagree, the scale is irrelevant. The slow systems in the 1970s were maybe only ingesting one book rather than millions of books, but legally there is no difference between one book and millions of books. If we are to believe that there is no legal right for a machine to read a book, then reading just one book is in violation of that.
What new technology? The Attention is All You Need paper, which gave rise to LLMs, showed a way to train neural networks faster, but it is not the speed at which machines can read books that is in question. Nobody has suggested that the legal contention is in traffic law, with computers breaking speed limits.
We've been doing this for decades upon decades upon decades. Incremental improvements in doing it faster changes the legal state not. To pretend that suddenly the world was flipped upside down is ridiculously disingenuous.