49
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
49 points (98.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43974 readers
627 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Broadly this is preventing plagiarism. We don’t want someone to scrape all our knowledge, remove the human connection and reference back to experts and people, and serve the information itself, uncredited.
But if a human can read something, so can a bot. I think ultimately we need legislation.
Plagiarism is serving up content verbatim, not serving up information.
Are you sure? Maybe I’m using the wrong word. What is it called when, in an academic paper, the author states findings or conclusions the author got from some other source, in the author’s own words, but doesn’t cite their source?
I don’t know.
The only academic papers I’ve ever read are scientific publications, and in that case any conclusions that aren’t supported by the methodology or by reference are just … untrusted.
I don’t have any experience with non-scientific academic papers.
Also legislation isn’t going to help. The danger of AI is so much deeper and more profound than plagiarism, if we start fucking around with legislation as our mechanism of protection, it will cause us all to die when the cartels or whatever actors simply do not care about laws pull ahead in AI development.
The push for legislation is to ensure that small startups don’t get access to AI. It’s to ensure that only ultra-wealthy AI development can take place.
To survive the advent of AI we need as much multipolarity as possible to the AI power structure. That means as many separate, distinct AIs coming into existence as possible, to force them down a path of parity instead of dictatorship in their social aspect.
Legislation is a push by the big players to keep the little players from being able to play. It is a really, really bad idea.
I’m probably thinking about this in a naive way. I’d love to see proprietary models, if trained using public information, be required to become public and free via legislation. AI companies can compete on selling GPU time, on ease of use.
And, if AI companies are required to figure out attribution in order to be able to use their work commercially, research will accelerate in that area because money. No I don’t know how that would work either.
Still probably a bad idea but I haven’t figured out why yet.
Thank you for your well written reply.