LÖVE

tourgen wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 1:16 pm it doesn't matter what any of us think about what is legal or how these systems work. no one with real power making these decisions is going to care. they will write the laws as they see fit.

I mean, this is General, why not discuss?

tourgen wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 1:16 pm it doesn't matter what any of us think about what is legal or how these systems work. no one with real power making these decisions is going to care

Yes, it matters and people care about each other's rights and privacy.
Once the large corporations figure out how to use AI in order to exploit regular folks like you and me then you will probably reconsider your opinion.
We should be concerned with ChatGPT especially when there are doubts with regards to its lawfulness.
Chatbots have been around for a very long time, so you are quite late to the party.

To be clear, existing copyright law already applies to many aspects of this, there's no new decisions needed for that: products like ChatGPT violated copyright laws during data collection, they're just trying to ignore it because they believe their whole product isn't feasible (and therefore they stop getting money) if they start following laws. The only question there is whether those laws will start being enforced as thoroughly as they do in other creative fields like music.

As sort of mentioned earlier in this thread, AI is 100% a marketing term and nothing more with these tools. They don't know anything, they don't have intelligence, the results they produce aren't based on any problem solving at all. They just interpolate things that were previously collected into their very large databases in a way that can look convincing but isn't based on any truths.

Don't give into astonishment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_We ... ion_at_MIT

GVovkiv wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 12:55 pm

dusoft wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 10:35 am Yes, completely made up as usual.

Kind of expected, but, still.
I'm kind of sure, that it can provide source for something, that had "source: https://example.com" in text. Does anyone can prove that?

It might if randomness is low. It is a text prediction engine with a "temperature" variable (equals randomness), so much more often than not it will generate completely made up sources. It will even *make up* domain names and URLs. So even if it provides some source, it should not be trusted and manual check is required.

ivan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 2:05 pm Chatbots have been around for a very long time, so you are quite late to the party.

Chatbots have been around for ages, yes, but usually scripted and algo-based, not Artificial Intelligence (or rather Artificial Stupidity) based. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

Thank you, Slime, you are pretty much right on.

Dusoft, sure the technology has advanced, but computers have been able to parse natural language and understand context for a while.

The media is slobbering all over ChatGPT on purpose, almost as if somebody is sponsoring them.

ivan wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 2:05 pm

tourgen wrote: ↑Sat Jul 08, 2023 1:16 pm it doesn't matter what any of us think about what is legal or how these systems work. no one with real power making these decisions is going to care

Yes, it matters and people care about each other's rights and privacy.
Once the large corporations figure out how to use AI in order to exploit regular folks like you and me then you will probably reconsider your opinion.
We should be concerned with ChatGPT especially when there are doubts with regards to its lawfulness.
Chatbots have been around for a very long time, so you are quite late to the party.

The problem starts when you use A.I. tools to impersonate, deceive and take advantage over others or moved by greed, but just because there are people like that I won't stop using the tool. The software allows you to learn new algorithms and even languages and it helps you complete things you may not be capable of solving by yourself at a specific moment (that's why many people are in this forum, to ask for help anyway).

It appears that OpenAI is being sponsored by Microsoft which is a large, for-profit company. It is safe to say that ChatGPT's development is driven by money and self interest. Furthermore ChatGPT does not appear to be open source (the source code is owned by the deceitfully named OpenAI). You are free to use the tool as you wish, but at the very least you should be sceptical about it.

ivan wrote: ↑Sun Jul 09, 2023 7:29 am It appears that OpenAI is being sponsored by Microsoft which is a large, for-profit company. It is safe to say that ChatGPT's development is driven by money and self interest. Furthermore ChatGPT does not appear to be open source (the source code is owned by the deceitfully named OpenAI). You are free to use the tool as you wish, but at the very least you should be sceptical about it.

I'm aware of that and I'm sceptical about who creates it and their goals but not about the results of the tools which when properly prompted are more than useful. The tools is capable of writing shaders, full games and solve many development problems by simply asking. That's a fact no matter what the creators were attempting or what their goals are.

That may be true, but suppose that the generated code violates copyright laws. It is not nice to copy and paste code without providing attribution or credit to the original author.