I found this to be a very odd set of 'decisions' to be made, and I found the consequences of those 'decisions' to be overstated. Begin with data size: do we continue with gigantic data sets? If yes, then we get 'black boxes', if no, we get 'democratized AI'. None of this makes any sense. Today's data sets are tiny compared to what AI will be working when when equipped with sensors and tools. AIs are already black boxes. And making data sets smaller simply disables AIs, it doesn't make them 'democratic' (I mean, why would you think that?). As for the copyright content: the AI is not gleaning content from these sources, it's scanning for word order. Is that what was copyrighted? You can't complain AI makes simple factual errors all the same and at the same time accuse it of plagiarizing our Journals of Record. In any case, who cares what the courts in one country say. There are more than 200 countries in the world. Then there's the suggestion that there may be 'significant opposition to AI'. Sure, maybe, in some rarified 'creator' communities. The big issue is whether we will have any income at all to live on when all this is said and done - but that's not mentioned at all. People have to stop reading the popular press on these issues; they're not trying to inform, they're trying to stir up emotions (and sell ads).
Today: 0 Total: 1124 [Direct link] [Share]
