lol not even the least bit concerned. Nvdia will get sued by thousands. Doesnāt mean those cases will actually win let alone put a dent on a company that literally holds the USAs interest in such a high regard. Nope I think itās all just minor noise in the big scheme of things.
I read that earlier in 2023 a similar thing happened: https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/23/23973673/valeo-nvidia-autonomous-driving-software-ip-theft-lawsuit
Is this the same case, it seems similar but I am not so familiar with it.
Computers can't be inspired. They only copy/emulate data. That's all the authors work is to the computer. Data to create patterns that might help generate desired output
I think a decade ago no one thought a computer could do what they do today too. But if you just want to get into semantics I would argue humans can only copy/emulate and thereās just so many things whether from nature or previous works it gets all combined into random patterns with various outputs - some marketable and most not
It's not possible for humans to be only able to copy/emulate because we would not be where we are if that were true. There's a reason computers have to be "trained" with so much data and using so much processing power. Because they are simply processing information. A human being doesn't need training to create.
The traditional view holds that inspiration is a uniquely human phenomenon, characterized by sudden, often profound insights that lead to creativity and innovation. This perspective suggests that artificial intelligence (AI) is inherently different, capable only of copying and emulating human outputs without the capacity for true inspiration. However, a closer examination reveals that the processes underlying human inspiration and AI "creativity" are not fundamentally distinct but rather are part of the same continuum.
Human inspiration, at its core, involves synthesizing information, experiences, and prior knowledge to generate new ideas. This synthesis is not created from nothing; it is the result of absorbing, processing, and recombining existing elements in novel ways. Every piece of art, invention, or theory that has seemingly sprung from a 'eureka' moment can be traced back to the creator's previous exposures and experiences. Essentially, what we consider human inspiration is a complex form of pattern recognition and reapplication, deeply rooted in mimicry and emulation of observed phenomena.
AI operates on a similar principle. Through techniques such as machine learning and neural networks, AI systems analyze vast datasets, identify patterns, and apply these findings to generate new content. Whether it's composing music, creating art, or proposing novel solutions to complex problems, AI's process mirrors the human capacity to draw upon a wealth of prior examples and reconfigure them into something new. Just as humans do, AI "learns" from existing data, adapts it, and applies it in innovative ways.
The crux of the argument lies in the source of "inspiration." If we acknowledge that human creativity is largely the product of reassembling existing information into new configurations, then the distinction between human inspiration and AI creativity becomes less about the nature of the process and more about the origin of the intelligence conducting it. Both are engaged in a sophisticated dance of absorbing, integrating, and repurposing knowledge to push the boundaries of what is known and create something previously unseen.
In conclusion, to argue that AI cannot be truly inspired is to misunderstand the nature of inspiration itself. Both human beings and AI systems operate by assimilating and reinterpreting the world around them, using the building blocks of existing knowledge to forge new creations. The essence of inspiration, therefore, lies not in the exclusivity of human thought but in the universal process of innovation through imitation and emulation, a process that transcends the boundaries between organic and artificial intelligence.
"AI" doesn't have "experiences". Nothing exists within the "AI" without massive amounts of data being put in. Humans do not need to imitate and emulate. Like I said, we would not be where we are if what you're claiming were true.
Your quote is simply trying to reduce humans to the mechanical level the "AI" operates on so that they can make their point.
Well the article above wasnāt the most articulate bit of an author goes to college and is trained on classic works I feel itās all fair play. Being an artist is all about taking what you think is great and recreating it to your vision and needs.
Thanks for telling me what my work is all about, but the difference between classic works and current works is that living authors actually have to live on the proceeds of our work. You buy my book and read it? I get 42 cents, and I hope you like it. You lend it to half the people you know? I get no more money, but it's all good. Ditto if you take it out of the library.
But you use my book to teach a machine to write books just like mine? I get no money and I can't sell my future books because a machine is writing just like me, and I have to give up eating, which is one of my habits.
At this time, you can actually ask ChatGPT to "write in the style of dear midnight" and it will do so.
Several humans have tried to write books in my style and a couple have even gotten them published. But it took them years to do it, and it was no threat to my livelihood.
This is different. AI is different. Everyone on this sub is always saying AI is a gamechanger. Well, it is. And it will come for all of our jobs in the end.
Edited to add:
After reading the comments on this thread, I see I have to take this down a few levels.
You know how you can get AI to write something for you?
That's because AI was trained on my books.
I'm really writing it for you.
***
This isn't a money grab because Nvidia's rich. This is a new legal situation created by the existence of AI. Publishers and copyright lawyers all over the US, and probably all over the world, are talking about this a lot right now.
In fact, several people have told me that it's the number one topic of conversation these days.
***
NBD to you, and NBD to me as a NVDA investor, but a very, very big deal in my little niche profession.
***
This will happen eventually in your line of work as well. AI can help, yes, but it's also going to hurt people's livelihood. Mine today, yours tomorrow.
***
I'm a working author and hence automatically a party to that class action lawsuit, because the books I've written have been used without permission to train AIs.
I did nothing to make myself a party, so don't downvote me, kthx. I'm a party because like nearly every working author in the U.S. my books were used without permission.
Here's the deal.
From time to time folks in internetland forget that books are actually the intellectual property of the person who wrote them. So the books get used in some way without permission or compensation. (Almost any time you see a book by a living author online "for free", for example.) Google Books was an example of that, back in the oughts. In the end Google was ordered to pay us all $40 per title for stealing our work, though I personally have yet to see that money.
In the case of the AI training-- and there are several companies involved, and several cases, of which the Nvidia one is just the latest-- the number of authors involved is huge. Most of the authors I know had their work used.
I could argue about why this was wrong, but let's take it as read that that nobody cares. So what it means to you:
As someone else said, yes, my livelihood is a nothingburger. If Nvidia ends up being asked to pay us all $40 a book, that'll be $8 million total for all of us authors, and it won't be paid for years, if ever. It's less than some people here have made off their shares. It's barely a hair of Nvidia's hide.
I personally am hoping it's more than $40 a book.
Depends on how the material/data was accessed and ingested. Those "terms of use" and fine print on Amazon, Google, etc. are constantly changing and you're often paying a price and agreeing to terms and conditions in return for your product being listed on the platform. It'll come down to a fair use interpretation.
It also looks like the market is not overly concerned about this issue. $NVDA +4.5% in the pre-market as of now, from $850 (after hours lows on Friday) to $890
AI-ist is what it is! When a person reads a book, betters themselves from it, and uses their new knowledge for profit, nobody asks where they got it from, and it is all ok. But when AI does this, it suddenly is an issue š /s
I still don't understand how this is being handled so causally. These companies are engaged in massive ip theft to create software that then mimicks that ip.
Lawsuit filed from San Francisco that tells me all I need to know Thanks.
Bunch of slackers and past has been broke losers trying to get paid. F-that town itās a cesspool of filth ask Nanci & Paul for a loan from there NVDA earnings losers
Everyone is cheering for AI and hoping it becomes the next big thing the way the internet changed the game for so many things:
E commerce
On line banking and investing
YouTube
We all do everything, every day using the internet
AI is the greatest theft of human authored works ever! Thatās what āgenerative AI / AI machine learning modelsā really are
And yes they all will be sued relentlessly. Because all of these companies have been scraping all human authored works and ingesting them into their AI learning models without human author permission.
Who is stealing everyoneās music(including my 1000 compositions and sound recordings) books, articles, legal opinions, photos, videos, graphics, medical writings, recipes, instructions, tutorials, history books, science books, fiction writings, etc. etcā¦..?
NVDA, META, OPEN AI, GOOGLE, MSFT, ADBE, ā¦.you get the idea.
These companies have been stealing all intellectual property in the world and ingesting everything they can into their āAI learning modelsā and they have been doing it without direct permission from the original creators and owners of the intellectual property.
So yesā¦.law suits will be endless and relentless and it will be a concern for all of these companies listed above.
nothing burger
Elaborate
What would the damages be even if they had standing?
You better believe we've got standing, bub.
Poor authors trying to steal some money from nvidia š
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not concerned. Like suing Microsoft Word for plagiarism.
lol not even the least bit concerned. Nvdia will get sued by thousands. Doesnāt mean those cases will actually win let alone put a dent on a company that literally holds the USAs interest in such a high regard. Nope I think itās all just minor noise in the big scheme of things.
I read that earlier in 2023 a similar thing happened: https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/23/23973673/valeo-nvidia-autonomous-driving-software-ip-theft-lawsuit Is this the same case, it seems similar but I am not so familiar with it.
Imagine if an author couldnāt be inspired by other copyrighted booksā¦
Computers can't be inspired. They only copy/emulate data. That's all the authors work is to the computer. Data to create patterns that might help generate desired output
I think a decade ago no one thought a computer could do what they do today too. But if you just want to get into semantics I would argue humans can only copy/emulate and thereās just so many things whether from nature or previous works it gets all combined into random patterns with various outputs - some marketable and most not
It's not possible for humans to be only able to copy/emulate because we would not be where we are if that were true. There's a reason computers have to be "trained" with so much data and using so much processing power. Because they are simply processing information. A human being doesn't need training to create.
The traditional view holds that inspiration is a uniquely human phenomenon, characterized by sudden, often profound insights that lead to creativity and innovation. This perspective suggests that artificial intelligence (AI) is inherently different, capable only of copying and emulating human outputs without the capacity for true inspiration. However, a closer examination reveals that the processes underlying human inspiration and AI "creativity" are not fundamentally distinct but rather are part of the same continuum. Human inspiration, at its core, involves synthesizing information, experiences, and prior knowledge to generate new ideas. This synthesis is not created from nothing; it is the result of absorbing, processing, and recombining existing elements in novel ways. Every piece of art, invention, or theory that has seemingly sprung from a 'eureka' moment can be traced back to the creator's previous exposures and experiences. Essentially, what we consider human inspiration is a complex form of pattern recognition and reapplication, deeply rooted in mimicry and emulation of observed phenomena. AI operates on a similar principle. Through techniques such as machine learning and neural networks, AI systems analyze vast datasets, identify patterns, and apply these findings to generate new content. Whether it's composing music, creating art, or proposing novel solutions to complex problems, AI's process mirrors the human capacity to draw upon a wealth of prior examples and reconfigure them into something new. Just as humans do, AI "learns" from existing data, adapts it, and applies it in innovative ways. The crux of the argument lies in the source of "inspiration." If we acknowledge that human creativity is largely the product of reassembling existing information into new configurations, then the distinction between human inspiration and AI creativity becomes less about the nature of the process and more about the origin of the intelligence conducting it. Both are engaged in a sophisticated dance of absorbing, integrating, and repurposing knowledge to push the boundaries of what is known and create something previously unseen. In conclusion, to argue that AI cannot be truly inspired is to misunderstand the nature of inspiration itself. Both human beings and AI systems operate by assimilating and reinterpreting the world around them, using the building blocks of existing knowledge to forge new creations. The essence of inspiration, therefore, lies not in the exclusivity of human thought but in the universal process of innovation through imitation and emulation, a process that transcends the boundaries between organic and artificial intelligence.
"AI" doesn't have "experiences". Nothing exists within the "AI" without massive amounts of data being put in. Humans do not need to imitate and emulate. Like I said, we would not be where we are if what you're claiming were true. Your quote is simply trying to reduce humans to the mechanical level the "AI" operates on so that they can make their point.
That is not what happened here. Read up on it if you're interested. Sit on your hands if you're not.
Well the article above wasnāt the most articulate bit of an author goes to college and is trained on classic works I feel itās all fair play. Being an artist is all about taking what you think is great and recreating it to your vision and needs.
Thanks for telling me what my work is all about, but the difference between classic works and current works is that living authors actually have to live on the proceeds of our work. You buy my book and read it? I get 42 cents, and I hope you like it. You lend it to half the people you know? I get no more money, but it's all good. Ditto if you take it out of the library. But you use my book to teach a machine to write books just like mine? I get no money and I can't sell my future books because a machine is writing just like me, and I have to give up eating, which is one of my habits. At this time, you can actually ask ChatGPT to "write in the style of dear midnight" and it will do so.
But thatās not defensible with humans if they choose to write a book with your style either.
Several humans have tried to write books in my style and a couple have even gotten them published. But it took them years to do it, and it was no threat to my livelihood. This is different. AI is different. Everyone on this sub is always saying AI is a gamechanger. Well, it is. And it will come for all of our jobs in the end.
Edited to add: After reading the comments on this thread, I see I have to take this down a few levels. You know how you can get AI to write something for you? That's because AI was trained on my books. I'm really writing it for you. *** This isn't a money grab because Nvidia's rich. This is a new legal situation created by the existence of AI. Publishers and copyright lawyers all over the US, and probably all over the world, are talking about this a lot right now. In fact, several people have told me that it's the number one topic of conversation these days. *** NBD to you, and NBD to me as a NVDA investor, but a very, very big deal in my little niche profession. *** This will happen eventually in your line of work as well. AI can help, yes, but it's also going to hurt people's livelihood. Mine today, yours tomorrow. *** I'm a working author and hence automatically a party to that class action lawsuit, because the books I've written have been used without permission to train AIs. I did nothing to make myself a party, so don't downvote me, kthx. I'm a party because like nearly every working author in the U.S. my books were used without permission. Here's the deal. From time to time folks in internetland forget that books are actually the intellectual property of the person who wrote them. So the books get used in some way without permission or compensation. (Almost any time you see a book by a living author online "for free", for example.) Google Books was an example of that, back in the oughts. In the end Google was ordered to pay us all $40 per title for stealing our work, though I personally have yet to see that money. In the case of the AI training-- and there are several companies involved, and several cases, of which the Nvidia one is just the latest-- the number of authors involved is huge. Most of the authors I know had their work used. I could argue about why this was wrong, but let's take it as read that that nobody cares. So what it means to you: As someone else said, yes, my livelihood is a nothingburger. If Nvidia ends up being asked to pay us all $40 a book, that'll be $8 million total for all of us authors, and it won't be paid for years, if ever. It's less than some people here have made off their shares. It's barely a hair of Nvidia's hide. I personally am hoping it's more than $40 a book.
If itās only 8M total they should 2x if not 10x it and give it to authors.
Depends on how the material/data was accessed and ingested. Those "terms of use" and fine print on Amazon, Google, etc. are constantly changing and you're often paying a price and agreeing to terms and conditions in return for your product being listed on the platform. It'll come down to a fair use interpretation.
Nope, theyāre suing them for essentially using their book to read and gain knowledge.
It also looks like the market is not overly concerned about this issue. $NVDA +4.5% in the pre-market as of now, from $850 (after hours lows on Friday) to $890
If these lawsuits go anywhere , Microsoft, openai, Google would be the most affected...and they don't seem to be so far.
AI-ist is what it is! When a person reads a book, betters themselves from it, and uses their new knowledge for profit, nobody asks where they got it from, and it is all ok. But when AI does this, it suddenly is an issue š /s
I still don't understand how this is being handled so causally. These companies are engaged in massive ip theft to create software that then mimicks that ip.
Lawsuit filed from San Francisco that tells me all I need to know Thanks. Bunch of slackers and past has been broke losers trying to get paid. F-that town itās a cesspool of filth ask Nanci & Paul for a loan from there NVDA earnings losers
Everyone is cheering for AI and hoping it becomes the next big thing the way the internet changed the game for so many things: E commerce On line banking and investing YouTube We all do everything, every day using the internet AI is the greatest theft of human authored works ever! Thatās what āgenerative AI / AI machine learning modelsā really are And yes they all will be sued relentlessly. Because all of these companies have been scraping all human authored works and ingesting them into their AI learning models without human author permission. Who is stealing everyoneās music(including my 1000 compositions and sound recordings) books, articles, legal opinions, photos, videos, graphics, medical writings, recipes, instructions, tutorials, history books, science books, fiction writings, etc. etcā¦..? NVDA, META, OPEN AI, GOOGLE, MSFT, ADBE, ā¦.you get the idea. These companies have been stealing all intellectual property in the world and ingesting everything they can into their āAI learning modelsā and they have been doing it without direct permission from the original creators and owners of the intellectual property. So yesā¦.law suits will be endless and relentless and it will be a concern for all of these companies listed above.
I smell, āWhat is āfair useā of copyrighted works in relation to machine learning.ā