Sarah Silverman really did a hit job on AI systems on the 11-8 episode of the Daily Show. I feel like it is largely fueled by ignorance of how the mathematics in these systems actually works. These systems do not make “copies/are copycats” like Sarah ignorantly espoused, they train on data and project that into an n-dimensional space to generate something new from its experience, not much different than humans do. They do not memorize the original data and make copies at all.
Most of are you are familiar with 2 dimensions like a piece of paper or 3 dimensions like a cube, machine learning systems learn in n-dimensional space where n can be any number; most of these systems the space is 10,000-1 million dimensions. These systems aren’t simply making a simple copy but extracting the most salient features in text, images, etc into a n-dimensional space to create a new product based on all of its experiences.
This is really no different than how humans create art, they observe lots of styles, learn from it, and try to create new things based on their knowledge based on the many dimensions learned by their observation and experience. Why is it wrong for a computer to learn from art posted online, but it is no issue for a human to learn from art posted online? Do humans have to cite every single painting they ever saw when creating something new? This seems like a double standard honestly.
Also creating AI models is in itself an expression of the artistic process. These systems are created by humans, not machines; they are an extension of human mathematical and scientific creativity. Fire was made by hand for 1000s of years; is it not an extension of human creativity to create a lighter such that you can create a flame at any time; likewise generating AI systems to create art is in itself an extension of human creativity and ingenuity in the same way that creating a lighter to make fire making easier is.
I liked Sarah Silverman for the rest of her segments, but she really showed her ignorance and lack of any technical understanding from a scientific/mathematics perspective on the development of AI.
I know the Daily Show is not a real news program, but Sarah Silverman is potentially the least objective person in the world to choose for a segment about AI. She’s currently in the middle of a major lawsuit about AI and is on the record she thinks training AI on her book was theft.
It is theft. How is it any different than musicians having to pay royalties for sampling an older track in their songs? Even stripped down versions that isolate a specific component and are used in a different style of music have to pay.
Maybe. I’m just saying she’s literally the least neutral person, in the world, on that question.
Equating machine learning with our biologically evolved CNS is either a delusion of grandeur or a very bad faith argument.
Equating machine learning with our biologically evolved CNS is either a delusion of grandeur or a very bad faith argument.
It’s people with no artistic ability who want to be able to call themselves artists because they typed a concept/idea into a computer and the computer drew it for them.
That’s unfair I think. I can’t draw worth a damn. I love photography. Does that mean photography is cheating because it’s pointless/click?
It’s simply a new (and vastly different) tool. You can argue morality on training sets, but to say 'just typing to create ’ is incredibly reductive.
To be fair a lot of AI programmers don’t know how AI works.
I mean it’s literally like, input, convolutional layers do something, output. Of course there is a lot more work to make the output “good” like in the case of chat gpt but realistically the building of even a decent model can be done by anyone that watched a couple of videos online and has some knowledge of computer programming . Figuring out how a model reached a specific conclusion is borderline impossible due to the complexity of all of the hidden layers. If devs could tell you how their model came to that conclusion and what was the models sources/“inspiration” as op may call it, I think at least I would feel a bit better about it. I really hate the “people learn from other people’s work why shouldn’t ai” bullshit equivalency it really is fucking hot garbage. There are artists, musicians, writers that get found out all the time for using someone else’s work and need to give credit and possibly monetary recompense all the time, but when ai literally scrapes copy written sources without permissions it’s suddenly the same as me paying to read a book and writing some derivative garbage cause I’m an idiot.
True.
My company who is in ai space has been working on a chatbot ai for 10 years and still has years to go before it is fully automated. It works fine but it struggles with complex issues.
If ask chatgpt to do complex coding, it struggles mightily.
People under 25 are ones who will have to deal with ai mess. We are still 10 to 15 years away before it starts killing jobs at major companies.
Yes, ai and microrobots will kill off skilled labor from electricians, plumbers, cooks, and housing labor in this time frame, too.
However, you absolutely cannot dispute that a for-profit entity profited by the act of their AI product learning from her book. The book may be publicly accessible, but it is not being given away free by its publisher, and whichever company’s AI product learned from it, derived profit from using her content.
That’s not even technology, it’s just logic and ethics.
She’s only got a few mins to make a comedy segment about it and there are indeed legit questions about whether it amounts to plagiarism.
Yes, there is a counter-argument, as you’ve just illustrated with the learning process for humans where we don’t get permission or pay a royalty for everything that influences our creative designs or expressions. Ultimately, whether it’s different when a machine does it is a matter for the courts to decide.
At the very least, we’ve seen many instances of where NIL has been used without permission by AI tools and I assume there will be limitations imposed or royalties owed in those scenarios. So, does Sarah’s book constitute “name, image, and likeness” particularly considering the autobiographical content?
Not sure, but I don’t think her portrayal of the issue demonstrated ignorance. It just showed her point of view given that she’s involved in one of these lawsuits.
She probably didnt write most of that segment. It was put together in a writers room and I imagine she helped edit the final version. Any other guest host would have presented a nearly identical segment.
Sarah Silverman is the female Dane Cook and has zero business hosting the daily show.
Sarah is suing ChatGPT, so she has an ax to grind. As host, she would’ve at least read and approved the script for use.
Axe to grind or not, I appreciate that she was upfront about it.
Upfront about her misinformed facts that she spread to further misinform the public?
Well I don’t know enough to know if she’s misinformed or not, so I’m talking about the fact that she has a stake in the argument/discussion about AI.
The entire topic that OP wrote about and what we’re talking about is how Sarah’s segment on AI technology was misinformed and biased because of an ongoing conflict of interest. It is misinformation which is dangerous. It is only three paragraphs long. You can read it if you want for context.
Was this also her excuse for doing that blackface skit a few years back? Absolutely awful person.
That blackface episode was kinda fantastic though?
It was also 2007.
And let’s be clear: the show made it very clear how awful her character was for wearing blackface.
She’s a shock comedian. Pushes boundaries. Of course she’s going to cover almost anything distasteful - that’s the schtick. When the episode aired… no one cared. It was pretty acceptable, as it was actually ANTI-blackface and racism in general.
Today? We realize memes are all that matter. No one is watching these episodes and appreciating context… so you just don’t do it because most will just see a single offensive image on the internet.
Basically the same thing as Robert Downey Jr’s character in Tropic Thunder. It’s making fun of the person putting on blackface, not the blackface stereotype itself.
Did she write the show herself?
My guy, 99% of us don’t understand the technical aspects of AI.
My guy, 99% of us don’t understand the technical aspects of AI.
Most of all the people who are so adamantly in favor of it and against all criticism of it seem to be the ones that are most confused by what it actually is. But they’ll argue their point of view with such strong conviction that they’ve actually convinced themselves they aren’t just bullshitting people.
Ah yes, the people who hate AI know more about it than the people that love and use AI, that makes a ton of sense.
And you want to talk about blind conviction? Come on–look at some of the comments in this thread. People treat creativity as if it’s sacred, and if you treat something as sacred all logic goes right out the window.
Seriously, just read back that comment and look at what the side you support is saying. You’re projecting like an IMAX.
She’s awful, can’t wait until her week is over.
Not buying it and will still consider to be a form of stealing.
100% this. I’m so sick of all the creatives (even those who should know better like Scott Galloway/Kara Swisher) implying that AI “copies” anymore than we humans do. Just bc AI is faster at learning and has broader skills doesn’t make the artistic process any different than how we learn and then create. I worry SCOTUS has a long history of “not getting it” as well and we’ll end up with some new standard for AI creation that doesn’t exist for humans.
If you don’t like art that can be “done in the style of Sarah Silverman”, then define how it can be commercially used if “too close”, just as we do for human copying.
“Just because bc AI is faster at learning and has broader skills doesn’t make the artistic process any different than how we learn and then create”
No AI will ever cry in an alleyway because the audience the night before loved them while tonight’s hated them. No AI will have it’s heart broken and bury its parents. No computer will have to look down the face of a terminal disease and find the will to keep creating.
You mindless chuds who consume art with no respect for the pain and struggle of what it takes to create art from the intangible.
AI doesn’t create, it outputs. You can test this easily, ask an artist to draw a picture of their happiest or saddest memory, then ask the AI to do the same.
*This post and following comments were generated by ChatGPT.
Nerd doesn’t understand art, explains why AI can’t replicate creativity in any real way
Boo hoo.
She’s a comedian.