Church of Jeff
@iinac -- It uses a lot less energy because the model is a lot smaller, very likely through curation of the data before the model was created.
The "cost" they are referring to is the amount of electricity and green house gasses it created to make the multi-dimensional model.
It neglects the "cost" of human work being done before that point to curate and validate all the data going into that AI model.
Church of Jeff
"Curation" does not solve the "THEFT" issue with #AI and #GenerativeAI
A Sustainable AI future includes AI companies having teams in the real world searching for new art and new science to validate and add to their models, through LICENSING or PAYING ROYALTIES to use that data from the artists and scientists.
aziz
> It neglects the "cost" of human work being done before that point to curate and validate all the data going into that AI model.
That is a cost for #wikipedia that would have welcomed such contribution. Otherwise that is a plain and simple added-value to the companies, and countries taking part in this, so called, curation.
Church of Jeff
You say it is a remix, but you don't see what needs to happen for this "Sustainable AI" future to take hold.
The major thing is Intellectual Property Rights Reform. Once you recognize who owns and who should profit from whatever data that is being used.
That is the key to it all and will allow those individuals to withhold or deny access to their data by the AI companies.
You are big on propaganda but no actual knowledge or facts on the technical or legal side.
aziz
Everything is a remix...
Church of Jeff
@aziz --
You're obviously versed in the social outrage portions revolving around #AI but you have a distinct lack of knowledge around the technology and the laws surrounding #AI
If all we have is your outrage, you're part of the problem and you will stand in the way of any progress or solution to the situation you want to fix.
You'll be your own worst enemy, perpetuating a problem but unwilling or unable to effect any change.
aziz
Maybe we stop talking which has the biggest weapon of mass alienation, and think why we accept borg assimilation, and value hoarding by the few?
aziz
There is no possible comparison between llama2 and the smallest #deepseek. Deepspeak is better on all account.
Church of Jeff
@aziz --
I am a creative analyst and study the creative process and creative people.
This study includes a lot of legalities surrounding intellectual property law.
These laws are all related specifically to ownership and economic value, so economics falls into this too.
Without understanding these things, simply leaning into the "social outrage" and injustice does nothing to actually fix the situation with AI companies stealing that data and profiting on the backs of those creatives.
aziz
I think you complain about theft because the tool, and money is not in your hands. I complain because the tool, and the money is not in OUR hands.
Daedalean
@jeffowski @aziz @iinac @blogdiva At the scales of data required to train the models a licensing agreement and financial transaction for every piece of data isn’t possible. Not enough people or time to do it. Which is a solid case for prohibiting it altogether by my lights.
Church of Jeff
@daedalean --
Offer a better solution then.
The "scale" you are talking about is getting smaller and smaller every day based on the computing power we have, so discounting it based on that alone is absolute bullshit and defeatist.
Nihilism is a bad look. Don't take us down with you.
Church of Jeff
@daedalean --
OK... But that still doesn't invalidate the Licensing and Royalties legal model I've proposed...
Curating is the only way to keep the greenhouse gases and electricity costs down.
If you look at the current popular pathways through the multi-dimensional models, the vast majority of the model is never used. Curation is the only way to cut away the waste before the expenditure of heat and CO2.
Daedalean
@jeffowski @aziz @iinac @blogdiva the computing power required to train on the data is reducing. The amount of data required is not. Deepseek uses 671 Billion parameters.
Church of Jeff
@daedalean -- "Prohibition of these activities is my alternative."
Prohibition of a current model of royalties and licensing that is alive and well for music at that humongous scale being applied to other groups to ensure economic survival of the people creating the value and wealth for the #AI companies?
Daedalean
@jeffowski @aziz @iinac @blogdiva prohibition of these activities is my alternative. Passing laws to protect your rights to what you produce is not nihilism by any stretch of the imagination.
Church of Jeff
@daedalean --
That's cute... You think there is a "standard" contract.
There are entire structures and teams from the artist, through their representation team, to entire structures and teams on the Apple iTunes side that all work together to ensure weekly and monthly royalty checks are properly paid out.
It may even be so routine that even Spotify, Pandora, and other companies have found similar solutions and processes that have similar (if not identical) outcomes.
Daedalean
@jeffowski @aziz @iinac @blogdiva dod you go out and find music to put into iTunes then negotiate with each individual artist? Or did you create a platform that had a standard license and artists opted into it? Big difference.
Daedalean
@jeffowski @aziz @iinac @blogdiva it invalidates the business case to do it at all. Go take your iTunes licensing platform for say visual art. Use deepseek v3 (opensource!) for your model. Figure out how much you will pay each artist for adding a piece of art. See if anyone jumps at the opportunity. 🤷♂️
Church of Jeff
@daedalean --
So you're OK with the theft of intellectual property and wealth transfer from these creators to the big #AI companies.
Why didn't you just say that from the beginning?
Daedalean
@jeffowski @aziz @iinac @blogdiva which again artists opt into using because it provides some value to them. Are you honestly claiming that you had custom, individual licensing agreements with each artist whose work was in iTunes?
Church of Jeff
@daedalean --
Lets be very clear. THERE IS NO STANDARD UNIVERSAL CONTRACT for music royalties.
There is NO STANDARD CONTRACT. Even the leasing forms you will obviously bring up as standard can be modified by either party.
If this model doesn't work, why is Apple iTunes making money? Is Apple doing it as a charity? Are Pandora and Spotify too?
The ignorance on your side and how that ignorance allows you to completely dismiss something that is working in real life is astounding.
Daedalean
@aziz @jeffowski @iinac @blogdiva never said too complex. Said not doable, not feasible. Said why. As far as ‘prohibition doesn’t work’? Copyright law prohibits use of other people’s IP without permission. Guess copyright law doesn’t work then?
Church of Jeff
@daedalean --
Considering how #AI companies can take what they want without regard for ownership is proof that Intellectual Property Law needs reforms.
The same way the Writer's Guild and Actor's Guilds forced new contracts on the Film Industry, laws need to be reformed to better protect the rights of ALL ARTISTS and creative people, including an expansion to scientists.
Without an economic model protecting the creators of the AI data models, there are no incentives.
aziz
> Why didn't you just say that from the beginning?
That is not what @daedalean said. @daedalean said that it is too complex to figure how to redistribute because each creative share is difficult or impossible to compute?
PS: prohibition does not work.
Church of Jeff
@daedalean @aziz ---
You're still using the same arguments they used to justify slavery.
Daedalean
@jeffowski @aziz none of those are ai. They are basically resellers. AI isn’t taking a book, a movie, a song (or many, many books, etc) and providing mass distribution of that work to more people than an artist could possibly reach on their own. I’m not proposing banning anything like that.
Daedalean
@jeffowski @aziz You’re taking a model you understand and attempting to apply it to a very different thing you don’t appear to understand. AI companies cannot pay artists enough for the amount of art (data) needed to make it worth it to the artist and have a profitable business. Hell, it’s not even clear they can be profitable currently when they’re just stealing it.
Church of Jeff
@aziz @daedalean --
He acknowledges that it is theft and people are being harmed and he is OK with that as long as the #AI companies are profitable.
And all his arguments are the same for supporting slavery, about profits and what is being built and not the injustice or harm it is doing to people.
People who are silent in the face of injustice may be seen as complicit with the oppressor.
We have a severe difference in ethics and morals that boil down to human rights and dignity vs. Money.
aziz
There are alternatives to LLM. Tho, you still need the equivalent of curation, and the fact that it is even more difficult to input the knowledge.
@daedalean is against slavery.
I think I will make a pause. see you around.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.