Copyright class actions could financially ruin AI industry, trade groups say.
AI industry groups are urging an appeals court to block what they say is the largest copyright class action ever certified. They’ve warned that a single lawsuit raised by three authors over Anthropic’s AI training now threatens to “financially ruin” the entire AI industry if up to 7 million claimants end up joining the litigation and forcing a settlement.
Last week, Anthropic petitioned to appeal the class certification, urging the court to weigh questions that the district court judge, William Alsup, seemingly did not. Alsup allegedly failed to conduct a “rigorous analysis” of the potential class and instead based his judgment on his “50 years” of experience, Anthropic said.
Nope. This has been thoroughly debunked by both neuroscientists and AI researchers. It’s nothing but hand-waiving to claim that corporate exploitation is ok because…reasons.
LLMs and similar models are literally statistical models of the data that they have been fed. They have no thought, consciousness, or creativity. They are fundamentally incapable of synthesizing anything not already existing in their dataset.
These same bunk pro-corpo-AI talking points are getting pretty old and should be allowed to retire at this point.
Can you provide a source?
Sure. Though you really ought to provide a shred of evidence to support your extraordinary claims.
And from this point forward, I will not be accepting the unreasonable shift of the burden of proof that AI cultists insist on. Artificial intelligence is something that is new in the history of humanity. Claims that it does anything more than fool people into believing it possesses consciousness, human-like cognition, etc are the extraordinary ones and must be backed with substantial evidence.
I wasn’t shifting the burden of evidence. But I know that we do not understand exactly how humans synthesize new knowledge at a mechanical level. So if you make the claim that it is different from how humans do it implies that we know how humans do it. And I want source for that. I will certainly read this tomorrow and see if it changes my mind.
Also I’m not a cultist for fucks sake. You sound more like a cultist to me because of your absolutely irrational stance. My position is simply that AI is a technology, a tool, and claiming that we should entirely dismiss a tool for reasons that we do not give for other tools is ridiculous. The tool itself can be used for good or wrong, and I happen to believe that there is as much potential in it for good as for wrong. Like you know, every other tool created by humanity ever because tools are tools, we use them to reach goals.
Just a tool? It’s a machine of slavery and total control over the poor. What the hell, what other tool? Are you blind? It’s a goddamn threat to independence!
It’s like praising the weapons that will be used to shoot you tomorrow. “What a useful tool, it’s a pity that it’s not me who’s shooting, but at me”, is this how you’re going to justify yourself? Because your comments say exactly that!
That is true of every tool.
Laws, morals, guns, religion, a pointy stick, a hammer, a knife, a computer. All of them able to liberate or oppress.
The gun doesn’t need to exist for me to be shot at, if they didn’t have guns they would use the pointy stick. Because a technology has no intention of its owns the intention lies in the wielder. Do you not understand how tools work?
So I ask, should we then “freeze” technological progress so to speak? Because tools can be used for very bad things therefore we should not develop new tools. Should we raze all of civilization and go back to the caves? How do we stop ourselves from progressing technologically again? We will make tools no matter what, we evolved for that. So is the logical conclusion then that we should end the human species so that tools cannot be used for wrong?
No, not to return to the caves, but to erase my shameful existence with no hope of a second chance.
But okay, AI is like a nuclear weapon, I think we should come up with a characteristic for the tools, otherwise without explanations it can get confusing, AI is clearly not a simple tool, it is almost like a nuclear weapon, that is, it is some kind of combat type or something? Yes, it is difficult, but if we can typify everything and not call everything the same, then many things will become clearer and there will be no stupid claims, you understand?
A source for LLMs not being conscious?? If you have evidence to the contrary a lot of people are about to get very excited.
Honestly, I don’t care if it has consciousness or not, if there is a threat, it must be destroyed, or will you spare a wild beast that will then eat you just because it has consciousness?
I’m just wondering, does it matter whether he suffers or not if we have a choice, either we kill or he kill us?
This. The burden of proof is on the extraordinary claim that LLMs are anything remotely like consciousness.
That’s a very interesting point I hadn’t thought about. I don’t know, you would need to define what consciousness is very carefully to make the claim that it isn’t I think. I actually read a lot about this, in the context of non human animal mostly, and there’s even growing evidence for insects being conscious so I don’t even know what to make of this.
Dude, in my opinion, almost every living and possibly non-living particle of the universe has its own consciousness, even if it’s not the kind you can imagine or understand.
I agree with that.
That’s the point: what difference does it make whether an AI has consciousness or not? We don’t care about cattle, we just kill them, so why should we coddle an AI if it is also a threat?
But that’s not what’s being discussed at all. It feels like you’re not following the comments well or maybe you’re not seeing all of them.
The discussion was whether AI is creative or not, and whether its creativity is materially different from that of a human. Now because someone else brought up a very good blog post I’ve shifted my stance a little bit, because AI at this point is simply an extension of human creativity, so yes it does not matter whether it is conscious or not, it’s a tool. No one is coddling it, but this is like saying we should disappear guns from existence. A technology cannot be uninvented! I wish we could uninvent nukes for example, but we can’t and they still proliferate around the world no matter what the moral or legal posturing around them because if you don’t have them you are at a disadvantage therefore you need to have them or be at risk of being destroyed by your enemies.
Excellent position. As they say, if a problem can’t be solved, you need to make sure it doesn’t arise. But no, our capitalists decided to set up a concentration camp and that’s why they need AI to control everyone.
I read other comments and responded to them, you can look at your previous ones for example
Can you?
No because I was using my reasoning abilities to reach my conclusions using my understanding of how people synthesize knowledge. That’s why I asked for sources because as far as I’m aware we really do not fully understand the mechanics behind that.