Remix clone Hacker News

Obviously. But it still a pretty strict form of IP protection.

Current AI is stuck imitating what it’s exposed to. If they actually learned the material they would understand to reject incorrect information in their training data. LLM’s etc can’t do that under current methodology, simply sucking up more training data and tossing more processing power at the algorithm doesn’t solve that issue.

Leaning from music doesn’t mean imitating that music. People can for example learn from mistakes without imitating those mistakes.

▲

pixl97 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

>LLM’s etc can’t do that under current methodology

I hate to give a smarmy result, but are you sure you know what RLHF is? Because this is one way to correct said data.

	▲	Retric 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		I am aware of RLHF, and no it doesn’t solve this problem. There’s a great deal of lesions to be learned from X PB of training data that wouldn’t be covered.

▲

constantcrying 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I am against all IP. I do not care what algorithms are used or in what way it differs from human learning, it makes absolutely no difference to me.

▲

Retric 5 days ago | parent [-]

If you actually rejected all forms of IP protection you’d insist AI companies freely share their source code, patroon can’t hide works behind a paywall, etc.

Is that your stance? Or do you have some more limited rejection of IP in mind.

▲

pixl97 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

>you’d insist AI companies freely share their source code

Myself I don't see those as being related at all. Keeping something secret is allowed. What is not allowed is something being 'not-secret' yet special. Once you share the source code to the world there would be no closing the barn door.

	▲	Retric 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		Trade secrets like source code are a core aspect of IP protection. What and how you can keep a secret is very much under the term IP, if you want to describe something more specific don’t use terms meant to describe something else. If you’re full on “information wants to be free” then the line doesn’t stop at a companies firewall.

▲

constantcrying 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

No. There is no duty to publish anything.

Intellectual property is about someone having ownership over an idea. It does not mean that you have a right someone gives his idea to you. These are totally separate things.

I am free to write, paint, code or film whatever I want. I have zero obligation to share that with anyone.

▲

Retric 5 days ago | parent [-]

More accurately: Intellectual property is about someone having ownership over information, as a photo for example isn’t an idea.

Remove it and you can’t retaliate against anyone buying or selling access to your company’s source code thus making it impossible to keep private. So all such source code ends up public at any reasonably large company effectively killing all AI startups etc. The same is true of any proprietary information thus quickly killing nvidia, AMD, etc. Medical R&D also dies outside of governments and non profits. It’s shocking just how many industries get gutted as there’s far less incentive to make accurate maps when anyone can copy them.

But hey, I respect your stance here.

PS: If you think contracts/DRM/whatever that’s the solution! Now you do have protection for info and thus IP again.

▲

constantcrying 5 days ago | parent [-]

Sounds fun.

	▲	Retric 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		As long as you know what you’re arguing for I doubt you’ll get many takers, but hey it’s a free country dream whatever you want to dream. At least it’s healthier than dreaming about gunning people down.