Please do not confuse uniform randomness with randomness at all.
On your die, if you colour one face in black and the other 5 faces in black, rolling it will still produce a random outcome. It's just that you get a 1:5 skew.
Or look at the probability that a given C-14 carbon isotope will decay tomorrow. As far as we can tell, that's as random as it physically gets. With the die you could theoretically try to run a physics simulation to predict how it rolls, but as far as we can tell, atomic decay is intrinsically random.
However a C-14 atom has about 1 in 3 million chance to decay on any given day.
I made no claim about the distribution and frankly it has no bearing on my point or the person who said he could post two pictures. The point is there are a lot of numbers / pictures / essays / that will never be generated, and someone is controlling what is possible. In fact people are working very hard to produce distributions pleasing to them, like your die.
My problem with your solution to require author permission to train is that it doesn’t solve anything long term.
What happens when all the licensed information still leads to the creation of demand hoarding AI? Most of what they are stealing is the sum total of human knowledge, which was created before most of us were even born - it is public domain already.
> Most of what they are stealing is the sum total of human knowledge, which was created before most of us were even born - it is public domain already.
Well then they cannot possibly stealing this, and short of creating laws that directly discriminate between algorithmic processing and human consumption - regulating the process, not the subject - this argument is quite literally nonsense.
How much do you think other AI companies would offer to get access to the transcripts of the generation that led to the proof? No doubt OpenAI will include it in their training data somehow and use it to build the next generation.
reply