watlingst

music, art, web.

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

@eng_khairallah1 this is quite old

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

@revolutsupport your bank has a wiff of s.h.i... my client and your client OdePoetryCiC received a large payment from @microsoftai and you say you are going to close their account.

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

@Revolut said they are closing my client Ode Poetry CiC's account when a large payment from their partner @microsoftAI hit the account. Please share or if anyone knows anyone at @Revolut, tell them to expect more bad publicity for this error. It's related to a launch in June

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

@godofprompt Claw

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

@NinjaBoffin @claudeai https://t.co/qLHvV7NMWL - you can

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

Stop scrolling and just do this one thing for Gaza today,

In the next week there is the chance for the UN to invoke its "Uniting for Peace" mechanism, which was created specifically for failure in its responsibility to safeguard peace. 👉Go to https://t.co/ndTk0R0tSF

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

https://t.co/VDICal7ITI

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

https://t.co/r7dCkhejB5

[GC Cooke @Gccooke]

Just like the internet in 2000, AI is about to enter its "trough of disillusionment."

Not because the technology doesn't work.

But because we've built an entire industry on assumptions that are no longer true.

History tells us what happens next:

[Ollie Bown misses Twitt er @olliebown]

Last year I wrote this piece which argues that it is wrong, misleading, perhaps dangerous, to imagine a spectrum with "creative" at one end and "true/accurate" at the other.

And here we are, with Microsoft reinforcing this view in its interface design.

https://t.co/zC5nH4wFuH.

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

@trousersgrumpy @wendy_nm @thecassreview Aye. Let’s hope!

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

@kerry_mccranor @thecassreview This doesn’t show a great depth of research, perhaps read the case report before making such claims based on ideology yourself

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

@trousersgrumpy @thecassreview No.

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

@wendy_nm @trousersgrumpy @thecassreview With a waiting list that makes this meaningless. No talking therapy is available for many years.

[Ed Newton-Rex @ednewtonrex]

I’ve resigned from my role leading the Audio team at Stability AI, because I don’t agree with the company’s opinion that training generative AI models on copyrighted works is ‘fair use’.

First off, I want to say that there are lots of people at Stability who are deeply thoughtful about these issues. I’m proud that we were able to launch a state-of-the-art AI music generation product trained on licensed training data, sharing the revenue from the model with rights-holders. I’m grateful to my many colleagues who worked on this with me and who supported our team, and particularly to Emad for giving us the opportunity to build and ship it. I’m thankful for my time at Stability, and in many ways I think they take a more nuanced view on this topic than some of their competitors.

But, despite this, I wasn’t able to change the prevailing opinion on fair use at the company.

This was made clear when the US Copyright Office recently invited public comments on generative AI and copyright, and Stability was one of many AI companies to respond. Stability’s 23-page submission included this on its opening page:

“We believe that Al development is an acceptable, transformative, and socially-beneficial use of existing content that is protected by fair use”.

For those unfamiliar with ‘fair use’, this claims that training an AI model on copyrighted works doesn’t infringe the copyright in those works, so it can be done without permission, and without payment. This is a position that is fairly standard across many of the large generative AI companies, and other big tech companies building these models — it’s far from a view that is unique to Stability. But it’s a position I disagree with.

I disagree because one of the factors affecting whether the act of copying is fair use, according to Congress, is “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work”. Today’s generative AI models can clearly be used to create works that compete with the copyrighted works they are trained on. So I don’t see how using copyrighted works to train generative AI models of this nature can be considered fair use.

But setting aside the fair use argument for a moment — since ‘fair use’ wasn’t designed with generative AI in mind — training generative AI models in this way is, to me, wrong. Companies worth billions of dollars are, without permission, training generative AI models on creators’ works, which are then being used to create new content that in many cases can compete with the original works. I don’t see how this can be acceptable in a society that has set up the economics of the creative arts such that creators rely on copyright.

To be clear, I’m a supporter of generative AI. It will have many benefits — that’s why I’ve worked on it for 13 years. But I can only support generative AI that doesn’t exploit creators by training models — which may replace them — on their work without permission.

I’m sure I’m not the only person inside these generative AI companies who doesn’t think the claim of ‘fair use’ is fair to creators. I hope others will speak up, either internally or in public, so that companies realise that exploiting creators can’t be the long-term solution in generative AI.

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

@trousersgrumpy @thecassreview That wasn’t my point. They are now not providing any care which leads to care being sought outside of any kind of expertise

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

@olliebown Bloody tin box drivers

[watlingst @stephendwolff]

This government description of extremism seems to be self referential. Perhaps they’ll disappear in some sort of recursive loop!