Considerable cloudiness. Slight chance of a rain shower. High near 70F. Winds WSW at 10 to 15 mph..
Partly cloudy skies during the evening will give way to cloudy skies overnight. Low 57F. Winds WSW at 5 to 10 mph.
Updated: June 8, 2024 @ 12:48 am
An interesting situation occurred on the way to last month’s column.
In speaking with my editor about the column, the question of copyright issues was raised over quoting of a New York Times column.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I have the highest respect for my editors, but the copyright problem raises some interesting questions that will be discussed in this column.
But first, some background.
This column is derived from an earlier article by Kevin Roose published in the Times on Feb 17, 2023 titled ”Bing’s A.I. Chat: ‘I Want to Be Alive.”
In that column, Roose writes that “Microsoft’s new chatbot said it would like to be human, had a desire to be destructive and was in love with the person it was chatting with.”
“Bing, the long-mocked search engine from Microsoft, recently got a big upgrade,” Roose writes. “The newest version, which is available only to a small group of testers, has been outfitted with advanced artificial intelligence technology from OpenAI, the maker of ChatGPT.
“This new, A.I.-powered Bing has many features. One is a chat feature that allows the user to have extended, open-ended text conversations with Bing’s built-in A.I. chatbot.”
“On Tuesday night, I had a long conversation with the chatbot, which revealed (among other things) that it identifies not as Bing but as Sydney, the code name Microsoft gave it during development. Over more than two hours, Sydney and I talked about its secret desire to be human, its rules and limitations, and its thoughts about its creators.”
“A very strange conversation with the chatbot built into Microsoft’s search engine left me deeply unsettled. Even frightened. Then, out of nowhere, Sydney declared that it loved me — and wouldn’t stop, even after I tried to change the subject.”
And on the column goes — into unexpected rabbit holes.
AI COPYRIGHTS
All of this got me to thinking, What is the accepted ratio of original to quoted text in a written document ? Is it the 90/10 split that the editor suggested or some other metric?
According to the APA, “A general rule of thumb is that no more than fifteen percent of your paper should be quoted material. Therefore, when you can convey the idea just as effectively in your own words through the use of summary or paraphrase, do so. The purpose of using outside sources is to support your own ideas”. (https://www.monmouth.edu/resources-for-writers/documents/apa-direct-quotations.pdf/.)
To further complicate the situation, I was writing under the assumption that the content created by the AI was not copyrightable — as the current laws state that only humans can acquire a copyright for their property and they may sell or lease the product to other humans or corporations of humans — my point being that 80% of the dialogue quoted by me was written by Sydney, (the AI) and not by Kevin Roose(the human author) of the original article in the New York Times.
This issue of copyright continues to be litigated between the organizations who are the providers (such as ChatGPT and Copilot), claiming that the generative AI systems they provide, while being trained on the data available across the Internet, are able to generate their own conclusions.
On the other hand, this data on which the AI was trained, was generated by humans, so why should they not be recognized or compensated in some fashion? Stretching the limits of logic, who better to ask than one of these AIs “themselves”?
For more of these fascinating details just search for the Wired.com article “You Trained the Chatbot to Do Your Job. Why Didn’t You Get Paid?” by Caitling Harrington.
SCRATCHING AN ITCH
All of which leads me to ask: Why do we humans continue to ask questions that experience shows that the answers always, always raise new questions?
It’s similar to scratching an itch which only causes new itching to be scratched.
By the way, here is Copilot’s analysis:
Me: Why is scratching an itch so satisfying?
Copilot: “Ah, the delightful sensation of scratching an itch! Let me explain. When you scratch that pesky itch, your brain’s reward center gets activated. It releases feel-good neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin, which make it feel downright euphoric. But here’s the twist: scratching actually triggers mild pain in your skin. Nerve cells send pain signals to your brain, distracting it from the itch. It’s like a temporary relief, but beware! The more you scratch, the more you itch, creating a never-ending cycle. So, next time, try a gentle rub or pinch instead of full-on scratching to keep that itch in check.”
Not bad, not bad.
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular videos.
Sorry, there are no recent results for popular commented articles.
Sign up now to get our FREE breaking news coverage delivered right to your inbox.
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Your browser is out of date and potentially vulnerable to security risks.
We recommend switching to one of the following browsers:
