Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)C

ClamDrinker

@ ClamDrinker @lemmy.world

Posts
0
Comments
200
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • That's a very short example, but it is a new arrangement of the existing information. It's not a new valuable arrangement of information, but new nonetheless. And yes, rearrangement is transformation. It's very low entropy transformation, but transformation nonetheless. Collages and summaries are in fact, a thing that humans make too.

    Unless you mean "new" as in, something nobody's ever written before, in which case not even you can create new information, since pretty much everything you will ever say or write down can be broken down into pieces that have been spoken or written before, which is not exactly a useful distinction.

    There’s no transformation, it’s not capable of transformation, it’s just a very complicated text jumbler that’s supposed to jumble text so that the output is readable by humans.

    Saying it doesn't make it true, especially when you follow it up with a self-debunk by saying it transforms the text by jumbling it in specific ways that keep it readable to humans, which requires transformation as like you just demonstrated, randomly swapping words does not make legible text..

    You’re taking investment advice from a parrot that had the entirety of reddit investment meme subreddits beamed into its brain.

    ???

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • No, not what I said at all. If you're trying to say I'm making this argument I'd urge you (ironically) to actually analyze what I said rather than putting words in my mouth ;) (Or just, you know, ask me to clarify)

    Copyright infringement (or plagiarism) in it's simplest form, as in just taking the material as is, is devoid of any analysis. The point is to avoid having to do that analysis and just get right to the end result that has value.

    But that's not what AI technology does. None of the material used to train it ends up in the model. It looks at the training data and extracts patterns. For text, that is the sentence structure, the likelihood of words being followed by another, the paragraph/line length, the relationship between words when used together, and more. It can do all of this without even 'knowing' what these things are, because they are simply patterns that show up in large amounts of data, and machine learning as a technology is made to be able to detect and extract those patterns. That detection is synonymous with how humans do analysis. What it detects are empirical, factual observations about the material it is shown, which cannot be copyrighted.

    The resulting data when fed back to the AI can be used to have it extrapolate on incomplete data, which it could not do without such analysis. You can see this quite easily by asking an AI to refer to you by a specific name, or talk in a specific manner, such as a pirate. It 'understands' that certain words are placeholders for names, and that text can be 'pirateitfied' by adding filler words or pre/suffixing other words. It could not do so without analysis, unless that exact text was already in the data to begin with, which is doubtful.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Yes, this is my exact issue with some framing of AI. Creative people love their influences to the point you can ask them and they will point to parts that they reference or nudged to an influence they partially credit to getting to that result. It's also extremely normal that when you make something new, you brainstorm and analyze any kind of material (copyrighted or not) you can find that gives the same feelings you desire to create. As is ironically said to give comfort to starting creatives that it's okay to be inspired by others: "Good artists copy, great artists steal."

    And often people very anti AI don't see an issue with this, yet it is in essence the same as the AI does, which is to detach the work from the ideas it was built on, and then re-using those ideas. And just like anyone who has the ability to create has the ability to plagiarize or infringe, so does the AI. As human users of AI we must be the ones to ethically guide it away from that (Since it can't do that itself), just like you would not copy-paste your influences into a new human made work.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • For OpenAI, I really wouldn't be surprised if that happened to be the case, considering they still call themselves "OpenAI" despite being the most censored and closed source AI models on the market.

    But my comment was more aimed at AI models in general. If you are assuming they indeed used non-publicly posted or gathered material, and did so directly themselves, they would indeed not have a defense to that. Unfortunately, if a second hand provided them the data, and did so under false pretenses, it would likely let them legally off the hook even if they had every ethical obligation to make sure it was publicly available. The second hand that provided it to them would be the one infringing.

    If that assumption turns out to be a truth (Maybe through some kind of discovery in the trial), they should burn for that. Until then, even if it's a justified assumption, it's still an assumption, and most likely not true for most models, certainly not those trained recently.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • They are not “analyzing” the data. They are feeding it into a regurgitating mechanism. There’s a big difference. Their defense is only “good” because AI is being misrepresented and misunderstood.

    I really kind of hope you're kidding here. Because this has got to be the most roundabout way of saying they're analyzing the information. Just because you think it does so to regurgitate (which I have yet to see any good evidence for, at least for the larger models), does not change the definition of analyzing. And by doing so you are misrepresenting it and showing you might just have misunderstood it, which is ironic. And doing so does not help the cause of anyone who wishes to reduce the harm from AI, as you are literally giving ammo to people to point to and say you are being irrational about it.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • You say it's not capable of producing anything new, but then give an example of it creating something new. You just changed the goal from "new" to "valid" in the next sentence. Looking at AI for "valid" information is silly, but looking at it for "new" information is not. Humans do this kind of information mixing all the time. It's why fan works are a thing, and why most creative people have influences they credit with being where they are today.

    Nobody alive today isn't tainted by the ideas they've consumed in copyrighted works, but we do not bat an eye if you use that in a transformative manner. And AI already does this transformation much better than humans do since it's trained on that much more information, diluting the pool of sources, which effectively means less information from a single source is used.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Which is why the technology itself isn't the issue, but those willing to use it in unethical ways. AI is an invaluable tool to those with limited means, unlike big corporations.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Not 1:1, overfitted images still have considerable differences to their original. If you chose "reproduce" to make that point, that's why OP clarified it wasn't literally copying training data, as the actual data being in the model would be a different story. Because these models are (in simplified form) a bunch of really complex math that produces material, it's a mathematical inevitability that it produces copyrighted material, even for calculations that weren't created due to overfitting. Just like infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters will eventually reproduce every piece of copyrighted text.

    But then I would point you to the camera on your phone. If you take a copyrighted picture with that, you're still infringing. But was the camera created with the intention to appropriate material captured by the lens? Which is why we don't blame the camera for that, we blame the person that used it for that purpose. AI users have an ethical obligation not to steer the AI towards generating infringing material.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Although I'm a firm believer that most AI models should be public domain or open source by default, the premise of "illegally trained LLMs" is flawed. Because there really is no assurance that LLMs currently in use are illegally trained to begin with. These things are still being argued in court, but the AI companies have a pretty good defense in the fact analyzing publicly viewable information is a pretty deep rooted freedom that provides a lot of positives to the world.

    The idea of... well, ideas, being copyrightable, should shake the boots of anyone in this discussion. Especially since when the laws on the book around these kinds of things become active topic of change, they rarely shift in the direction of more freedom for the exact people we want to give it to. See: Copyright and Disney.

    The underlying technology simply has more than enough good uses that banning it would simply cause it to flourish elsewhere that does not ban it, which means as usual that everyone but the multinational companies lose out. The same would happen with more strict copyright, as only the big companies have the means to build their own models with their own data. The general public is set up for a lose-lose to these companies as it currently stands. By requiring the models to be made available to the public do we ensure that the playing field doesn't tip further into their favor to the point AI technology only exists to benefit them.

    If the model is built on the corpus of humanity, then humanity should benefit.

  • Japan Is So Desperate to Increase Its Birth Rate That Tokyo Is Trying Out a New Idea: Free Daycare

    Jump

  • Well, countries with higher birthrates have a third option that is essentially negligible in those with lower birthrates, which is not even making it to adulthood. Effectively still less children end up becoming productive members of society. And together with that, due to less available social services, often a goal of having children survive is so they can take care of the parent when they're older.

    As soon as infant mortality becomes a non-factor, birthrates decline drastically as well. And since children are no longer largely seen as a "life assurance" for when parents are older, and the society's demands for productive members is higher as well, the focus really does shift to the quality of the life and the two types of reasons to have kids are harder to compare. But even among developed nations you can see differences in fertility rates.

    PS. Scandinavia doesn't have the lowest birth rates, they actually have fairly typical birth rates for more developed regions.

  • The masculine urge to nuclear project posting

    Jump

  • The same people that build nuclear don't build solar or wind. And yes, there is a huge shortage for these people with renewables, which is where the black and white flat cost of energy sources breaks down. Renewables are slightly less expensive than nuclear, but infinitely more expensive when their natural source is unavailable and battery / hydro storage is depleted. "far too expensive" is highly over exaggerated when nuclear costs about 1-3x as much as renewables, with newer reactors being on the low end of that scale.

    On top of that there are very few moments where there is almost no wind or sunshine over a very large area all at once, making it economically unviable to an enormous degree.

    To make this happen you need a massive amount of overcompensation for the times that the sun does shine and the wind does blow. The kind that isn't economically viable. You're building decentralized infrastructure that needs to be maintained while being essentially useless a lot of the time. You also can't exactly build a new wind/solar park in response to short term fluctuating demand, while you can scale up reactor utility.

    Obviously the best backup is battery storage, ... And it allows far more decentralisation: small battery pack, which combined with some solar allows them to be basically off the grid.

    The biggest users of electricity are not homes. You're right, this is a fine setup for houses. But you're not going to solve the biggest energy users this way. Not to mention, even for people at home, the amount of rare earth metals required with current technology is an ecological disaster in it's own right. We need batteries, but lets not pretend they are currently a final solution. Decentralization is not a magic cure all, decentralization also causes places with outdated energy infrastructure requiring new investments to completely revamp the system. This is not economically viable.

    But even something like gas is a more preferable alternative to nuclear. It’s very cheap and still viable when needing to spin up or down quickly.

    This is not carbon neutral, which is what our goal is. So you're essentially conceding the point here. You also highly overestimate how many days a year you would need them, considering the sun doesn't shine for at least HALF the day on average.

    Unfortunately it is, because money is finite. And investers choose whatever is most viable, which increasingly is not nuclear.

    Which is why nuclear is necessary. As the engineers that can build and maintain renewables are busy, and the grid is oversaturated with renewables when the sun is shining and the wind blowing (causing their efficiency / utilization to fall if you build any more) they will eventually break the equation in favor of nuclear. And there are still nuclear reactors being built in places where public opinion isn't irrationally afraid of nuclear.

    The sad thing is we could have been building them 20 years ago, and have had massive steps ahead in being green now. Instead we are here hoping for some kind of miracle technology like cheap batteries, nuclear fusion, carbon capture, all which isn't a certainty to become fruitful, yet nuclear is here right now.

  • The masculine urge to nuclear project posting

    Jump

  • Nuclear is there as a back up for when the sun doesn't shine, the wind doesn't blow, you don't have enough space for renewables, or you've reached the capacity for building and repairing renewables (Either logistically, in lack of expertise, or lack of public support). If you can't find a solution for that the result you end up with is just going back to fossil fuels when the times are tough. That's not carbon neutrality.

    Battery storage is also still a breakthrough away from being viable enough to store all the electricity renewables could potentially generate to be able to sustain a 100% load when they are less effective, not to mention the amount of infrastructure required for them to be able to do so. You need some kind of baseline to supplement it that works when nothing else does.

    We need both renewables and nuclear, and nuclear should never be a reason not to invest in renewables. But the same goes the other way around. We're in a crisis, we can't be pedantic about this stuff when the world waited out the clock to the very end like a teenager the day before his exam. We can pick the perfect options when it is no longer the enemy of good options. Until then every option should be explored.

  • The masculine urge to nuclear project posting

    Jump

  • Sadly, it's just not. Looking at just the price to generate is just too one sided. Renewables need a lot of expensive infrastructure due to being decentralized, land which you might not have, and experts that are already in huge shortage. Energy storage especially is hard and expensive with current technology due the massive amount of rare earth metals you need for it, and even the current largest storage facility can't even provide enough energy for 2 million people let alone 8 billion of them.

    I calculate it and explain it in even more depth here: https://lemmy.world/comment/13508867

    TL:DR; currently, renewables + nuclear + storage is the closest we can get to carbon neutral. With just renewables and storage you don't get anywhere close and are still forced to fall back on either fossil, (stored) hydro, or nuclear. Of which the only really viable green option for most places is nuclear. When the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing, when the alternative is the exact pollution we are trying to nullify, that should be more important than paying a few cents more per kWh. In that moment the cost for renewables might as well be infinite if they're not producing anything and we don't have enough batteries to store it.

  • Anon questions our energy sector

    Jump

  • I'm sure such cases exist, but where I'm from people don't really get paid to host turbines, maybe companies at times. They dislike them because it affects the view in the area, and especially if you live very close to them the blades can cause noticeable flickering shadows. That latter point has a lot more weight to it in my eyes, but people do really care about the former as well, and it's kind of hard to push on people when they live there and not you.

  • Anon questions our energy sector

    Jump

  • There is competition in battery production. Pretty much all of society would be better off with better batteries, so price gauging in an industry like that is quite hard. And if it was, it would not go unnoticed.

    The problem is simply the technology. There's advancements like molten salt batteries, but it's practically in it's infancy. The moment a technology like that would become a big improvement over the norm, it would pretty much immediately cause a paradigm shift in energy production and every company would want a piece of the pie. So you'll know it when you see it. But it might also just start off very underwhelmingly like nuclear fusion and very gradually improve with the hope it can scale beyond the current best technologies for batteries.

    All we can do is wait and hope for breakthrough, I guess. Because cheap and abundant batteries could really help massively with reducing our carbon output.

  • Anon questions our energy sector

    Jump

  • 2.160 GW is it's rated capacity. I'm not sure how you got from there to 14.2 dollars per watt, but it completely ignores the lifetime of the power plant.

    Vogtle 3&4 are really a bad example because unit 4 only entered commercial activity this year. But fine, we can look at what it produces just recently.. About 3335000 MWh per month, or about 107 GWh per day. We can then subtract the baseline from Reactor 1 & 2 from before Reactor 3 was opened, removing about 1700000 MWh per month. Which gives us about 53 GWh per day. The lifetime of them is expected to be around 60 to 80 year, but lets take 60. That's about 1177200 GWh over it's lifetime, divided by the 36 billion that it cost to built... Gives you about 0.03 dollars per kWh. Which is pretty much as good as renewables get as well. But of course, this ignores maintenance, but that's hard to calculate for solar panels as well. As such it will be somewhat larger than 0.03, I will admit.

    Solar panels on the other hand, often have a lifetime of 30 years, so even though it costs less per watt, MW, or GW, it also produces less over time. For solar, and wind, that's about the same.. So this doesn't really say much.

    But that wasn't even the point of my message. As I said, I agree that Nuclear is slightly more expensive than renewables. But there are other costs associated with renewables that aren't expressed well in monetary value for their units alone. Infrastructure, space, approval, experts to maintain it.

    Let’s ignore that no grid in the country actually needs 10hr storage yet.

    Because they cannot. They can't do it because there's not enough capacity. If the sun is cloudy for a day, and the wind doesn't run. Who's going to power the grid for a day? That's right. Mostly coal and gas. That's the point. Nuclear is there to ensure we don't go back to fossils when we want to be carbon neutral, which means no output. If you are carbon neutral only when the weather is perfect for renewables, then you're not really carbon neutral and still would have to produce a ton of pollution at times.

    I'm glad batteries and all are getting cheaper. They are definitely needed, also for nuclear. But you must also be aware of just how damn dirty they are to produce. The minerals required produce them are rare, and expensive. Wind power also kills people that need to maintain it. Things aren't so black and white.

    Also consider that PV and batteries have always gotten cheaper over time, while nuclear has always gotten more expensive.

    This is not true, and it should be obvious when you think about it. Since this data fluctuates all the time. Nuclear has been more expensive in the past, before getting cheaper, and now getting more expensive again. Solar and wind have had peaks of being far more expensive than before. These numbers are just a representation of aggregate data, and they often leave out nuance like renewables being favored by regulations and subsidies. They are in part a manifestation of the resistance to nuclear. Unlike renewables, there are many more steps to be made for efficiency in nuclear. Most development has (justifiably) been focused on safety so far, as with solar and wind and batteries we can look away from the slave labor on the other side of the world to produce the rare earth metals needed for it. There is no free lunch in this world.

    For what it's purpose should be, which is to provide a baseline production of electricity when renewables are not as effective. A higher price can be justified. It's not meant to replace renewables altogether. Because if renewables can't produce clean energy, their price might as well be infinitely high in that moment, which leaves our only options to be fossil fuels, hydro, batteries, or nuclear. Fossil fuels should be obvious, not everyone has hydro (let alone enough), batteries don't have the capacity or numbers at the scale required (for the foreseeable future), and nuclear is here right now.

  • Zorgen bij ministeries over ongewenste inmenging Israël in Nederlands debat

    Jump

  • Ik dacht dat SGP over het algemeen een respectabele partij waren, maar ze zeggen hier letterlijk gewoon "Yep, accepteer maar wat Isreal hier op dit blaadje zet." in hun motie. Dat is toch te gek voor woorden als het gaat om mensen en organizaties als terroristen markeren? Daar hebben we toch onze eigen veiligheidsdiensten voor om dat soort beslissingen te onderbouwen? Niet klakkeloos over nemen van een land dat een gigantisch conflict van interesse heeft om kritiek de mond te snoeren en mensenrechten veel minder serieus neemt.

    Ja wat er in Amsterdam gebeurt is, is ver weg van acceptabel. Maar laten we niet doen alsof er niet gezonde mensen zijn die niet heel vrolijk worden van Isreal's manier van dingen doen.

    In mijn ogen niet anders dan Erdogan die hier of in Duitsland vraagt om hier iemand te veroordelen of uit te leveren omdat ze online wat gemene woorden over hem zeggen. Kom maar met bewijs dat het hier illegaal is, en dan kunnen we verder praten, tot dan, rot op met je ongefundeerde inmenging.

  • Anon questions our energy sector

    Jump

  • Solar and wind are cheaper yes. Batteries, no. If batteries were that cheap and easy to place we'd have solved energy a long time ago. Currently batteries don't hold a candle to live production, the closest you can get is hydro storage, which not everyone has, and can't realistically be built everywhere.

    Look at the stats. The second largest battery storage in the US (and the world) is located near the Moss Landing Power Plant. It provides a capacity of 3000 MWh with 6000 MWh planned (Which would make it the largest). That sounds like a lot, but it's located next to San Jose and San Fransisco, so lets pick just one of those counties to compare. The average energy usage in the county of San Clara, which contains San Jose (You might need to VPN from the US to see the source) is 17101 GWh per year, which is about 46.8 GWh per day, or 46800 MWh. So you'd need 8 more of those at 6000 MWh to even be able to store a day's worth of electricity from that county alone, which has a population of about 2 million people. And that's not even talking about all the realities that come with electricity like peak loads.

    For reference, the largest hydro plant has a storage capacity of 40 GWh, 6.6x more (at 6000 MWh above).

    Relative to how much space wind and solar use, nuclear is the clear winner. If a country doesn't have massive amounts of empty area nuclear is unmissable. People also really hate seeing solar and wind farm. That's not something I personally mind too much, but even in the best of countries people oppose renewables simply because it ruins their surroundings to them. Creating the infrastructure for such distributed energy networks to sustain large solar and wind farms is also quite hard and requires personnel that the entire world has shortages of, while a nuclear reactor is centralized and much easier to set up since it's similar to current power plants. But a company that can build a nuclear plant isn't going to be able to build a solar farm, or a wind farm, and in a similar way if every company that can make solar farms or wind farms is busy, their price will go up too. By balancing the load between nuclear, solar, and wind, we ensure the transition can happen as fast and affordable as possible.

    There's also the fact that it always works and can be scaled up or down on demand, and as such is the least polluting source (on the same level as renewables) that can reliably replace coal, natural gas, biomass, and any other always available source. You don't want to fall back on those when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. If batteries were available to store that energy it'd be a different story. But unless you have large natural batteries like hydro plants with storage basins that you can pump water up to with excess electricity, it's not sustainable. I'd wish it was, but it's not. As it stands now, the world needs both renewables and nuclear to go fully neutral. Until something even better like nuclear fusion becomes viable.

  • AI Expert Warns Crash Is Imminent As AI Improvements Hit Brick Wall

    Jump

  • The time will come, you can slowly see the tide turning :) Most people aren't inherently against it, just (understandably) cautious, and at worst misinformed or radicalized about hating it.

    What really helps is to start with showing something you really put your heart into, where you can explain your choices and techniques, before you tell them it was done with (help from) AI. There was a recent study where people actually seemed to prefer works made with AI, until they were told it was made by AI and not a person. This just shows there is an AI-bias under people, and being able to show that whatever you're making was in fact largely a product of your creativity, not the AI's, really helps.

    I tend to make recordings and snapshots of work in progress and then turn that into one of those animations that blends frame to frame to show the entire process. Just being able to show that it wasn't just doing nothing yourself and that it's still your creation really helps make people understand.

  • AI Expert Warns Crash Is Imminent As AI Improvements Hit Brick Wall

    Jump

  • People differentiate AI (the technology) from AI (the product being peddled by big corporations) without making clear that nuance (Or they mean just LLMs, or they aren't even aware the technology has a grassroots adoption outside of those big corporations). It will take time, and the bubble bursting might very well be a good thing for the technology into the future. If something is only know for it's capitalistic exploits it'll continue to be seen unfavorably even when it's proven it's value to those who care to look at it with an open mind. I read it mostly as those people rejoicing over those big corporations getting shafted for their greedy practices.