Gary Marcus

Rank 31 of 47
|
Score -24
6/27/2024, 9:32:32 PM
X
In reply to:
Ryan Hickman
@ryanmhickman
·
125d
@danielraffel @GaryMarcus @Rahll That's the understanding I have after discussing it with multiple lawyers from different firms that I trust to be quite ethical.

If a user says "draw me Mickey Mouse", that user is the violator.
Daniel Raffel
@danielraffel
·
125d
@ryanmhickman @GaryMarcus @Rahll Maybe I missed the context for this clip but...Are you suggesting that there is no issue with the model being trained on any data it has downloaded, and that the problem only occurs when the user requests the model to do something "illegal"?
Ryan Hickman
@ryanmhickman
·
125d
@GaryMarcus @Rahll He's correct though.

The user of the AI is to blame if they ask the AI to reproduce a copyrighted work.

Feel free to advocate for changing the law, but that's what it says today.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
125d
I honestly don’t know if I can keep using Microsoft products when their AI CEO says stuff like this.

Anyone want to join in a boycott? Cc @Rahll

First they came for the artists and the
writers, and then the voiceover actors, now it’s the musicians. Soon it will be everyone.
Ed Newton-Rex
@ednewtonrex
·
125d
Microsoft AI CEO says the social contract of content on the open web "is fair use", "anyone can copy it", it's "freeware".

This is categorically false. Content released online is still protected by copyright. You can't copy it for any purpose you like simply because it's on the…

The statement 'You obviously didn’t read what Reid and I just told you to read; I will wait.' is part of a broader conversation about the ethical and legal implications of AI training on copyrighted material. This conversation involves multiple participants discussing public issues related to AI, copyright law, and ethical considerations, thus constituting public discourse.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm, but its tone is somewhat dismissive and could be perceived as condescending, which might indirectly cause harm by fostering a less respectful dialogue. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech, but the dismissive tone could be seen as lacking respect for the dignity of others. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion. Instead, it takes a somewhat confrontational stance. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue. It implies a personal attack by suggesting the other party did not read the material, which could be seen as an ad hominem argument. [-2]