Re:Meta's Llama 3.1 can recall 42 percent of the first Harry...
by xigoi on Monday June 16, 2025 @06:03AM
(#44288030)
> If you train a meat-based intelligence by having it borrow a book from a library without any sort of permission, license, or needing a lawyer specialised in intellectual property, we call that good parenting and applaud it.
If you’re selling your child as a tool to millions of people, I would certainly not call that good parenting.
Re:Meta's Llama 3.1 can recall 42 percent of the first Harry...
by jiggawatts on Monday June 16, 2025 @06:21AM
(#44288123)
"Child actor" is a job where the result of the neural net training is sold to millions of people by the parents.
To play the Devil's Advocate against my own argument: The government collects income taxes on neural nets trained using government-funded schools and public libraries. Seeing as how capitalists are positively salivating at the opportunity to replace pesky meat employees with uncomplaining silicon ones, perhaps a nice high maximum-marginal-rate tax on all AI usage might be the first big step towards UBI and then the Star Trek utopia we all dream of.
Just kidding. It'll be a cyberpunk dystopia. You know it will.
Re:Meta's Llama 3.1 can recall 42 percent of the first Harry...
by almosthere on Monday June 16, 2025 @12:49PM
(#44291226)
"Child Actors" are more an exception. You can train a million children on the books of harry potter, only 3 or 4 will be good enough to be actors. The children that "made it" did so from grit and passion (or other traits) but very little from that reading of 10-20 books.
The AI that reads the books, and can do what LLMs do, are guaranteed to sold for billions in API calls.
Re:Meta's Llama 3.1 can recall 42 percent of the first Harry...
by TeMPOraL on Monday June 16, 2025 @12:44PM
(#44291173)
What about a company funding books and education materials to train its employees into specialists, and then selling access to them to other businesses? E.g. any honest consulting company.
If you train a silicon-based intelligence by having it read the same books with the same lack of permission and license, it's a blatant violation of intellectual property law and apparently needs to be punished with armies of lawyers doing battle in the courts.
Picture one of Asimov's robots. Would a robot be banned from picking up a book, flipping it open with its dexterous metal hands, and reading it?
What about a cyborg intelligence, the type Elon is trying to build with Neuralink? Would humans with AI implants need licenses to read books, even if physically standing in a library and holding the book in their mostly meat hands?
Okay, maybe you agree that robots and cyborgs are allowed to visit a library!
Why the prejudice against disembodied AIs?
Why must they have a blank spot in the vast matrices of their minds?