hendrik

Hmm, das stimmt wohl. Es ist ja auch eine ziemlich vielschichtige Angelegenheit. Wobei es mich jetzt auf der simpelsten Ebene nicht überrascht, dass ein Mustererkennungs-Apparat wie das menschliche Gehirn Muster mag. So wie Rhythmen und Melodien. Das ist irgendwie notwenidgerweise genau das was es mag (Strukturen etc finden).

Der Vergleich zum Schmecken ist sicherlich auch interessant. Soweit ich weiß ist da evolutionär einiges angelegt: Fettig und Süß ist gut, Bitter eher ein Warnsignal. Und dann lernen wir aber doch Bier und Kaffee zu mögen... Oder auch nicht.

In these cases I'll do the same thing other people here seem to do as well. Do a backup (or snapshot) and then I'll try to just do it. Obviously read the documentation on updates and major version upgrades first. I think that's fine in the case of paperless-ngx.

Either it works or it doesn't. In that case I'll gather error logs and information for debugging and roll back to the backup. After a successful major upgrade, I often go through the settings and config and check about all the things that have been added or changed in the meantime and make sure they're set to my liking.

I mean there is some valid discussion going on whether some vulnerable people need protection. Generally I agree. But due to it's nature as a yes-man, ChatGPT will feel nice and give a lot of reaffirmation, which has the potential to mess up some people real bad and send them spiralling down. So they might indeed need some form of protection. But that shouldn't take anything away.

Ich denke aber in Konsequenz heißt das nicht viel. Hass, Verbrechen, Gewaltfantasien bis Mord sind auch irgendwie Teil von Menschlichkeit. Trotzdem werden sie reglementiert. Aber wir sind definitiv fasziniert und schreiben echt viele Detektivromane oder Filme über Massenmörder und Computerspiele über Krieg... Im echten Leben ist aber trotzdem nichts davon erlaubt.

Interessanter Artikel.

es gibt keine musikalischen Vokabeln, die man lernen müsste, um sie zu verstehen

Aber ist das wirklich so? Also so für Jazz, Blues und Pop gibt's ja schon feste Strukturen und Vokabeln auswendig zu lernen. Und Musik ist ja schon sehr unterschiedlich, ob ich mir jetzt westliche Populärmusik anhöre, oder Klassik oder arabische Musik und soetwas wie traditionelle chinesische Musik ist nur Geklimper für mich, da fühle ich nichts bei. Vielleicht sind das doch Aspekte, die gelernt sind?

Hmm. I'm a bit older and I don't think we were allowed gaming consoles either. And it took us way longer than some of my friends to get a good internet connection. We had an old computer when I was a kid, though.
So we played point and click adventures and whatever that old machine would run. And I started to learn programming when I was a little kid since that was possible on the old potato. But we had a plethora of other hobbies and things available. And I'd fetch my bicycle and head off to friends with better PCs. So I was mostly alright?! I had that feeling of missing out at times. But it wasn't that bad. And someday when I was a teenager, we got broadband and a fast computer. Still no Nintendo, but that was alright. At that point I had become interested more generally with computers and gaming was just one aspect of it.
Today, I sometimes play Super Mario 64 or some of those games I never got to finish since I never had them at home and it brings me some (fake) nostalgia.

Yes. That's economy and investment how we usually do it today. The conclusion of that is, the "manufacturers" sell their product at the end of the day. I think in the realm of what we're discussing, it means an AI company is then the client of the book authors. And they pay for the books, or more the content within. That's the traditional model and doesn't make sense unless it results in some product being sold.

You suggested that the government should produce textbooks to prevent abuse. Would that also be your solution here? Would that be preferable to the current arrangement?

Now that's a really interesting question. Some intelligent people have proposed similar things, economy being controlled by the government instead of the free market. And we've tried it. Turns out it's tricky to get it right. When they tried applying it to the entire economy, it often resulted in lots of corruption, an underperforming economy, up to outrageous things like famine and starvation in the population. Though I'm making it sound simpler than it is. Lots of different factors were involved with that.
And then sometimes we get it somewhat right. For example education is done by the government. Public infrastructure like roads, trains... And the government already produces books and TV. One example is public broadcasting like the BBC or ARD/ZDF here. I think what they produce is far superior than news in the USA. On the downside it's a very bloated organization and they waste lots and lots of money doing it.
So... My answer to your question is: yes and no. Yes, government should produce books and other content. Like local news from my region, which is not a profitable business so the private companies regularly fail due to that. And education would be another topic. It'd be great if education were accessible to everyone, at no cost. Maybe some other things.
And no, I don't think government should produce all books and content. That'd be kind of a monopoly on information. It's hard to choose which book should be written and which discarded. Which wannabe autor to put on the payroll... We'd need a lot of trust and faith in the government, which we don't have. And it's likely going to fail because of a multitude of reasons. I'd say it's somewhat a nice idea. But I give it zero chance to work as intended in reality.

It'd massively help if people just tag AI generated content reliably. That way we wouldn't need to have the same conversation over and over again. I think we should just make this mandatory across the network, give everyone an option to filter and everyone can use the platform however they like.

Maybe ask for the studies? I mean if that's phrased as a fact... Why not read up on it? Maybe they're mistaken, or you are.

I don't think my opinion as some random dude matters here. I could uphold arbitrary stupid believes. But this is kind of a factual question. So whether I personally, as one person, am fine with something is of no concern here. The question is, how do we arrive at a consistent economy model for immaterial goods...

And I think I wrote like 5 times now that I'm NOT fine with that. I said I view it as a (necessary) evil. It is evil in the sense of bad, I'm not fine with it, it comes with severe issues, we should do better than that. However "is" and "should" are two seperate things. We happen to live on a world that came up with copyright. It exists. We made a pact with the devil to address one thing. And I'm merely acknowledging that. Since it does exist, I need to deal with it. That's not agreement from my side. Copyright serves one legitimate purpose. It applies our capitalist economy to immaterial goods. It's supposed to allow individuals and companies to create, and trade with more than just cocoa beans. But it's complicated and we might have come up with a stupid way to do it. And a way that simultaneously has lots of negative side-effects.

And now what? That is the question. Do we abolish it? Do we replace it with something else that handles the one legitimate purpose a better way? Do we retrofit it and try to "patch" it? Do we do that just for AI? Or for more than just one use-case?

And I think I make a point about how return on investment and an economic rent are two distinct things. Yet they're in practice falsely(!) mushed together, which again is bad... Or am I mistaken and I can pay an artist for their investment but not pay a rent? I don't think there is a good way to do it with the current model. That means I get to treat both as the same. You seem to be under the impression I like it. But I don't. It's just that I have to abide by law and that currently mandates me to do it.

Well, it's complicated. And depends on which theoretical option we're talking about. I for example think writing the textbook when you're the professor and selling that to the students is a very bad thing. I'm not fine with that at all. They should be funded mainly by taxpayer money (at least that's what we do). And the fruit of their labour should then be owned by the taxpayer. The US does similar things, like government texts, NASA pictures etc used to be owned by the people. And everyone is "the people" from a random student to a big AI company.

It's a bit a special example though, and doesn't translate 1:1 to the private book market.

I believe your regular book author does it the other way around. They aren't commissioned by anyone, they generally write it and only after that does the product get monetized. And I believe that's where your "rent-seeking" comes in. Somehow the author managed to feed themselves for the time it took them to write the book, and now they have it as an asset which they can try to turn into as much money as they can. It's two things mushed together. Their valid desire to eat and be compensated for their labour, plus the rent from the asset which might be huge for popular books and doesn't reflect labour cost. And all of this is very different from a university professor with a salary. It could and should be decoupled for them. But it's straight up impossible for the majority of authors, given our current copyright model. I think that's a fundamental limitation of capitalism.

And I wonder if those regulatory mechanisms are even applied correctly. I had that with the textbooks in university to some lesser extent. School was fine. But I heard in the US for example education is a complete rip-off and we get news articles every year on how parents can't afford the several hundred bucks for school textbooks for their children. And that is despite a different copyright doctrine. Maybe our model here leads to better results some times, I don't really know.

And concerning the Fair Use: Is there law which offers an option for compensation? I thought that was contradictory per definition.

Pretty much. The AI companies are Nestle in that analogy. They get their supplies for free?! While I and everyone else had to pay for the very same supplies, when I needed the textbook to study CS to become a computer programmer. The professor gets to brush up their salary, and I think it's a bit unfair to me that I'm asked to take out 60€ from my mediocre turnover of a few hundred bucks a month as a student. I think I should have been asked to pay 30€ and a company with a billion dollar budget should be asked to pay something like 100€ since they make use of it multiple times. And they should hand that cost down to their customers. And my use was transformative as well. The information from the textbook is now modeled in my brain.

I think the analogy with the picture is kind of alright as well. I mean analogies are hard here, since it's a labour intensive task to duplicate crops and coffee beans, while duplication is pretty much for free in case of information. And it doesn't take away the original.

Now what is a picture? It's kind of a summary, a depiction of the outer appearance. And snapping a picture of a book cover would make sense for Fair Use. That's kind if what it's made for. If you now snap a picture of each and every one of the 400 pages inside, that's where law says Fair Use stops. And what do AI companies use for training? A picture/summary of the book? Or the content within?