Geek Stuff category archive

Sarah Silverman, among others, is suing the makers of AI bots for copyright infringement. She has the unmitigated gall to think that Tech Bros shouldn’t just vacuum up the work of others so as to line their own pockets.

A snippet:

The suits, filed July 7, accuse the two firms of using Silverman’s and two other plaintiffs’ work to enrich their AI systems, OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Meta’s LLaMA, in violation of book copyright law. It’s the latest in a stream of legal challenges to the training and output of AI systems, suits that have often accused the tech companies of lifting work without permission or pay.

“AI needs to be fair and ethical for everyone,” Matthew Butterick, one of the suit’s lawyers, said in a statement. “But Meta is leveraging the work of thousands of authors with no consent, no credit, and no compensation.”

Bruce Schneier points out the ChatGPT and similar “AI” bots work by mining data produced by others, then spitting in back out.

He proposes that those whose data is mined deserve to be reimbursed for their contributions. Follow the link for his reasoning.

Magiea v. 8 with the Fluxbox window manager. The wallpaper is from my collection.

If I had to pick one thing that keeps me using Fluxbox, it’s the right-click menu.

Anywhere the mouse pointer is on the screen, as long as its not on an application window, a right-click brings up the menu.

At Psychology Today Blogs, Matt Grawitch argues that one of the effects of the growing use of artificial “intelligence” has been paradoxically to highlight the importance of human expertise and research. A snippet:

But the internet also brought challenges in determining the credibility and accuracy of information. Those with insufficient expertise to discriminate what was credible from what was not could easily research their way into questionable conclusions (e.g., the Earth is flat, vaccines cause autism). And we saw a rise in people claiming they had “done their own research” to justify their views, regardless of the legitimacy of the views they endorsed.

(snip)

Fast-forward to today and the increasing availability of AI-driven tools for research and decision-making. While many of these tools are very confined in terms of the scope of their capabilities, the introduction of broader AI, like Bard and ChatGPT, makes it possible for people to by-pass the process of researching a topic and building an argument and head straight to the conclusion or decision. The dangers of this, though, have been on full display recently, such as when a professor incorrectly flunked all his students for cheating (because ChatGPT told him they had) or the lawyer who used ChatGPT for legal research only to find that the cases he had cited didn’t exist (he was subsequently sanctioned).

The marvels of modern technology . . . .

Investigators say Stephanie Merola, 32, was preparing to take a shower in her Cranston residence Wednesday evening when she heard a buzzing sound outside the bathroom window.

When Merola went outside to investigate, cops say, she spotted a drone hovering near the window. As she approached the drone, it began to fly away, but struck a tree branch and fell to the ground. Merola then grabbed the drone (pictured below) and dunked it in her pool, disabling the quadcopter’s electronics.

According to the report, the pilot has been–er–grounded.

Emma and the crew look behind the curtain and call out the chicanery.

At Psychology Today Blogs, Gleb Tsipursky offers some pointers for detecting the deception. He make three main points:

• AI-generated misinformation blurs truth, making it hard to discern fact from fiction.
• People can unmask AI content by scrutinizing it for inconsistencies and a lack of human touch.
• AI content detection tools can spot and neutralize misinformation, protecting against its spread.

Follow the link for a detailed discussion of each one.

Aside:

I will add one bit of advice:

Don’t believe stuff just because you see it on a computer screen.

At Above the Law, Ethan Beberness reports that Open AI and ChatGPT just might be getting their day in court–as defendants.

In Georgia, Mark Walters, who is apparently a local radio personality of some sort, has sued OpenAI for libel based on falsehoods propagated by ChatGPT, and Techdirt wonders whether the suit has a prayer. Here’s a bit from their article; follow the link for context.

Of course, all of this raises a bunch of questions: Is this actually defamatory? Is there actual malice? If so, who is legally liable?

And I’m not sure there are really good answers. First off, only one person actually saw this information, and there’s no indication that he actually believed any of it (indeed, it sounds like he was aware that it was hallucinating), which would push towards it not being defamation and even if it was, there was no harm at all.

Second, even if you could argue that the content was defamatory and created harm, is there actual malice by Open AI? First off, Watson is easily a public figure, so he’d need to show actual malice by OpenAI . . . .

Aside:

Whether Walters wins or loses, I doubt he’ll be the last to want a day in court with ChatGPT.