trention

It's not enough to state that the human mind is a pattern matcher as pretty much everyone of the "scale is all you need" crowd does. You have to prove it too.

Otherwise it's just a variant of Russell's teapot.

The fact that something is "an inevitability" (which is definitely not the case here) has nothing to do with whether it's a net negative or not.

This is like saying "you should classify this as blue" and then a response like "no, it's heavy".

>I personally know multiple people doing this full time at large tech companies.

The failure mode of internal "ethical" control at private enterprises is well-known and has already played out (at least) once when we tried to regulate medical experiments in the 2 decades after WW2. I personally consider the current AI safety positions to be just blatant whitewashing. The lemoine fiasco is a specifically hilarious case in point combining both a) a person that is utterly incompetent and biased to work at that position and b) total failure of leadership to adequately engage with an issue (or even admit it's possible in principle). At the current point, AI safety is roughly as useful as tobacco lobbying (exaggerated for effect).

There are enough people criticizing both current language models and the overall "quest" towards AGI that come from a non-political (unless you subscribe to an aristotelian everything-is-politics) perspective. I personally don't think any of the companies with significant AI research is actually doing anything meaningful in terms of safety. Also, from their public "utterings", it's quite clear to me that both Altman and Hassabis (not to mention Lecun) don't actually care about safety or consequences.

I am curious what is the reasoning behind "giving "good guys" access to language models will {deus ex machina} and thus allow us to prevent the spam and abuse".

Here is one prediction: Because of language models, the amount of fake news online will increase by an order of magnitude (at least) before this decade ends. And there is no interpretation of that development as anything else but a net negative.

Another more broad prediction: In a decade, the overall influence of language models on our society will be universally seen as a net negative.

And I will be very happy if I had the famous ability of Midas whenever I willed so but that's not the question. Those "super happy" people will themselves be automated away from their jobs by AIs at roughly the same point as programmers, give or take several years.

Turning people into economically useless appendages (at best being consumers at the mercy of state-dispensed UBI) is not something to celebrate but a dystopia. So is destroying the ability of humans to achieve station in life because of their cognitive ability. I however don't think we will find common ground regarding that question.

So it's indeed not "without victims", is it? Bonus points for reading comprehension and "coherent" comparison between automating physical and cognitive labor.

Devaluing all human intelligence (which is what the endgoal of all those advanced models is) is not "moving forward" in my book.

>Fundamentally, there's no real difference between Copilot and a human

Fundamentally, it's absolutely OK to allow humans to do the thing X and to prohibit AI from doing it. This is what I hope will happen here (though it probably won't).

>soon many rote coding jobs will be taken away since Copilot will automate them. And that's fine

Good luck finding enough non-rote jobs to re-employ those developers. It will be an interesting reflection though when "just learn to code" turns into "just learn to lay bricks for $10 an hour".

>should never be found in the hands of another person

I am absolutely fine with other people using my code.

I am not fine with my code being used by AIs whose only ultimate goal is to make me unemployable while simultaneously generate a bunch of money for some corporations and introduce a bunch of labor and inequality issues in an already shit society.

Potential output has nothing to do with the question whether the training data is "memorized" in the weights or not. To me, the answer to the latter question is "obviously yes".

"that has no obvious victims"

Come back with that line when the absolute number (not to mention the pay) of developer jobs worldwide starts decreasing because of this. It will probably happen by the end of the next decade.

Copilot currently is very far from being able to cut 33% of the time spend writing code, let alone 33% of the working time of the average software engineer.

In 3-4 years - maybe, but not now.

That being said, luddism was a thing for obvious reasons and it's not clear to me that we will be able to create any jobs at all post automation with this type of AI models. At the very least what will happen is that human intelligence will be devalued significantly in the job market.

He wouldn't be at the top only if he was not using said way and his competitors were. This is of course missing the point. If chess enthusiasts knew that grandmasters were using AI to aid them when playing in tournaments, the interest (and the revenues) would simply plummet.

This is a practical (at most you could call it purely utilitarian) argument and not a deontological one.

There is a capability line that needs to be crossed before we start seeing this. Which I think most of those older systems didn't cross. For me, one answer to this could be given when we're able to compare the number of illustrators employed in the US in June 2022 vs in June 2027. + the delta of the average salary.

I won't pretend to know the specifics of the legal decision that will follow from this, but it's easy to guess that when those tools start causing structural unemployment (and that will happen soon enough), there will be a backlash.

Even the most naive takes I see here (it's no different than you reading public code = "the AI should be treated the same as a human") will be forced to re-evaluate their position once they become unemployable because of these AIs.

That has nothing to do with anything I wrote. And doesn't contradict it actually.

Saved costs will not translate to higher margins for those that cut them because all competitors will be able to slash them as well, resulting in lower prices across the board.

If that happens, all art will simply have no value and art as % of GDP will plummet.

Incidentally, this hasn't happened in areas where AI already dominates like chess and go. Magnus Carlsen alone probably generates more "revenue" than all chess AIs combined.

Although I agree that a somehow less extreme version of that will happen in the course of this decade bar a legal decision to prohibit using those models, that won't translate to comparable revenues. The companies providing those services will struggle to make even 10% of the salaries of the displaced workers in revenue. In fact, this will probably be a GDP-destroying (though not value-destroying) application of technology.

I am willing to bet that the revenue from AI-generated "art" will be smaller than the revenue from human-generated art in 5 years (or even 10 years) despite the former probably being at least 2 orders of magnitude higher in volume. This is basic supply and demand + acknowledging the fact that humans don't care about AI "achievements".

It's just an illustration of the fact that the average person doesn't give a sh*t about AI "art" and that it will have ~zero cost and ~zero value.

None of those things had zero price and zero cost. The fact that the consumer didn't pay directly for them is irrelevant. You can try testing your theory by trying to sell a "painting" created by DALLE/whatever for more than a third-rate amateur painter can sell one of his. Good luck with that, especially when access to the model becomes easy.

>People respond to the quality of the work, not who made it

This is so painfully incorrect and naive (and contra anything we know about the value of everything which creation has been automated before) that I think it's meaningless to continue this conversation.

I am not saying (in that last comment) what should happen, I am saying what will happen. Past automation in terms of impact is nothing compared to what's coming and people and lawmakers will react accordingly - not in favor of the automators.

No, I will not be surprised. Outliers are outliers. "Art" created by AIs will just have price (and cost) of ~0 and, like everything that has a price/cost of 0, nobody will give a sh*t about it. The only real question is how will human artists (provided they exist in your preferred dystopia) will prove that they have created something themselves.

Except that AI will not lead to "golden ages of art production" because nobody gives a sh*t about art created by AIs. And nobody will.

You are saying that the AI should be treated the same way as a person would regarding its 'output'. I disagree. This is a conceptual disagreement and you cannot just sweep under the rug "what cognition or creativity really are".

At the end, when in several (2-5) years we start seeing structural unemployment emerging because of AI deployments, this will be resolved by the legal system, most likely by some sort of partial prohibition of training/monetizing such systems.

It's absolutely fine to allow humans to do that while prohibiting (commercialized) AI to do the same thing.

This is true for the current iteration of the model. Probably won't be true at least to an extent in 5 years. Besides, there is nothing wrong with solving boring problems. Not everyone can be Bjarne Stroustrup.