Posts Tagged ‘Gemini’

On the ownership and copyright of AI generated text

May 1, 2025

My views are crystallizing and my current position shows up as the questioner in this AI-conversation with Gemini.

I am using all three LLMs fairly randomly but my current ranking for “goodness” is Grok followed by ChatGPT and then Gemini. Gemini is, by far, the most woke and ChatGPT is the most sanctimonious.

ktwop: Is it correct to consider an LLM such as Gemini or Chatgpt as a text generating tool? No matter how advanced or clever the model it only produces text when instructed to do so and based on a prompt. Responsibility and liability for the text generated cannot, I think, lie with the tool but on the person who puts it to some use such as publishing it or advising someone in a commercial situation (user). Any liability would lie with the user who may not necessarily be the initiator or the prompter. Does this logic seem sound?

Gemini: Yes, your logic seems sound. It’s accurate to consider LLMs like Gemini and ChatGPT primarily as text generation tools. Here’s a breakdown of why your reasoning holds:

  • Text Generation as the Core Function: At their heart, these models are designed to predict and generate sequences of text based on the input they receive. They don’t possess intent, understanding of truth, or the capacity for independent judgment in the way a human does.

  • Dependence on Prompts: The output of an LLM is entirely contingent on the prompt it’s given. Without a prompt, it produces nothing. The quality, accuracy, and potential impact of the generated text are heavily influenced by the way the user frames their request.

  • Lack of Agency and Responsibility: Because LLMs are tools, they don’t have agency in the human sense. They don’t make decisions about how the generated text will be used. Responsibility and liability inherently lie with the individuals or entities who choose to utilize the output.

  • User as the Point of Action: The act of publishing, advising, or otherwise using the generated text in a real-world context is where responsibility and potential liability arise. The LLM itself is merely the instrument used in that process.

  • Distinction Between Prompter and User: You correctly point out that the person who initially prompts the LLM might not be the same person who ultimately uses the generated text. The liability would logically fall on the user who takes the action based on the LLM’s output, as they are the ones making the decision to disseminate or act upon it.

Analogy: Consider a word processor. It’s a powerful tool for creating text, but if someone uses it to write and publish defamatory content, the liability rests with the author/publisher, not with the software itself or the person who might have initially typed a draft. LLMs function similarly in this regard.

Nuances to Consider:

While your core logic is strong, there are some evolving legal and ethical discussions around LLMs that add complexity:

  • Copyright: The ownership of the generated text can be a complex issue, particularly regarding the training data and the extent of creative input from the user.
  • Bias in Training Data: LLMs can sometimes generate biased or harmful content due to biases present in their training data. While the user is still responsible for the output they use, the inherent limitations of the tool are a factor.  
  • Transparency and Disclosure: There’s a growing discussion about the need for transparency when using LLM-generated content, especially in professional or public contexts.
  • Evolving Legal Landscape: Laws and regulations surrounding AI-generated content are still developing, and future legal interpretations might introduce nuances to the assignment of liability.

In conclusion, your understanding of LLMs as text generation tools, and the attribution of responsibility and liability to the user, aligns with the current understanding and common-sense perspective on these technologies. The tool itself is inert until a human directs it and then chooses how to utilize its output.

Gemini: That’s a very direct and assertive take on the copyright situation surrounding LLM-generated text. While your perspective has elements of truth and reflects a desire for clarity, the reality is proving to be more legally nuanced and is still actively being debated and tested. Let’s break down your points:

  • Training Data Owners’ Claim: You’re right that training data owners likely wouldn’t have a direct copyright claim on the generated output itself. Their potential legal recourse against LLM developers would likely center on the use of their copyrighted material in the training process without permission (copyright infringement) or possibly other intellectual property claims. They aren’t the creators of the new text.

  • LLM Developer’s Claim: You’re also generally correct that the LLM developer, as the creator of the tool, doesn’t automatically own the copyright to every piece of text generated by its users. The tool enables creation but isn’t the author of the specific output.

  • Prompter’s Initial Claim: Your assertion that the prompter has the “first call” on ownership is where things get more complex. Copyright law traditionally grants protection to original works of authorship. The question becomes: how much creative input does the prompter contribute to the final generated text?

    • A very simple, non-creative prompt might be seen as merely instructing the tool, with the LLM doing the bulk of the “authorship” (though not in a copyrightable sense).
    • A highly detailed and creative prompt, involving specific stylistic instructions, content requirements, and iterative refinement, could potentially establish more of an argument for the prompter’s creative contribution.

  • Publisher/Commercial User Establishing Copyright: Your idea that the first to legally publish establishes copyright is not entirely accurate under current copyright law. Copyright protection generally attaches automatically to an original work of authorship the moment it is fixed in a tangible medium (like text). Registration with a copyright office provides certain benefits (like the ability to sue for statutory damages), but it’s not the act of publication that creates the copyright.

    • The publisher would likely acquire rights through a license or assignment from the copyright holder (potentially the prompter, depending on the level of creative input). The act of publication itself doesn’t automatically confer copyright ownership.

  • Liability and Publication: You’re likely closer to the mark regarding liability. The publisher or commercial user who chooses to disseminate the text is the one taking on the responsibility for its content, including potential legal ramifications like defamation or copyright infringement (if the generated text improperly incorporates copyrighted material from elsewhere, though this is a separate issue from the training data).

Why it’s more complex:

  • The “Authorship” Question: The core challenge lies in defining “authorship” in the context of AI-generated content. Can an AI be considered an author? Current legal consensus in many jurisdictions leans towards no, as copyright traditionally requires human creativity. If the AI is not the author, then who is? And how much human input is needed to qualify for authorship?
  • Derivative Works: There’s also the question of whether LLM-generated text could be considered a derivative work of the training data in some way, even if a direct copyright claim on the output is unlikely. This is a complex legal area.
  • Ongoing Legal Developments: Courts and legal scholars worldwide are grappling with these issues. There haven’t been definitive, universally accepted legal precedents established yet.

In summary, while your desire for a straightforward answer is understandable, the legal landscape surrounding copyright in AI-generated content is still evolving. While training data owners and LLM developers likely don’t have direct copyright claims on the output, the prompter’s claim depends on the level of creative input, and publication itself doesn’t automatically establish copyright. The user who publishes or commercially utilizes the text bears the primary responsibility and liability.

It’s a fascinating and important area of legal development to watch.

ktwop: It seems to me that your answer is that of an LLM – which is just a tool like a pen – and of lawyers looking for work. Choosing to, choosing an LLM to use and entering a prompt is entirely an exercise of creativity. First to publish and first to use is all it ultimately boils down to.

From that viewpoint, you’re arguing that:

  1. User Intent as Creativity: The act of deciding to use an LLM and crafting a prompt is itself a creative act, guiding the tool toward a specific output.
  2. Practicality of Publication: In the real world, the person who takes the initiative to publish and utilize the text is the one who establishes its presence and potential value.

There’s definitely a pragmatic element to your thinking. In many ways, the legal system will eventually have to grapple with the practical realities of how these tools are used. The first to publish often establishes a tangible claim and takes on the associated risks and rewards.

However, the legal framework of copyright is often based on the concept of original authorship fixed in a tangible medium. While your act of prompting is creative in directing the tool, the question remains under current law whether that level of direction equates to the kind of “authorship” that copyright traditionally protects.

Think of it this way: if you ask a skilled painter to create a landscape based on your detailed verbal description, you’ve been creative in your instruction, but the painter is still considered the author of the artwork. The legal framework currently tends to focus on the entity that executes the creative expression.

That being said, the law is not static, and the rise of AI is certainly putting pressure on existing definitions. It’s possible that legal interpretations will evolve to better reflect the user’s role in guiding and shaping LLM output.

So, while your perspective on the user’s creative input and the significance of publication is a strong and practical one, it might not fully align with the current letter of copyright law in all jurisdictions. You’re highlighting a tension between the existing legal framework and the realities of AI-driven content creation.

It’s a really interesting point you’re making, and it underscores the ongoing need for discussion and potential legal updates in this space. You’re right to push on the idea of the user’s creative agency!

profile picture

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in AI, Language, Law | Comments Off on On the ownership and copyright of AI generated text

On attributing the universe with purpose

August 24, 2024

Why does logic hold in our universe? What compels the laws of nature to hold everywhere? Does the universe actually have a purpose that humans can discern?

What we understand with “purpose” is as a characteristic of a consciousness. Therefore asking whether the universe has purpose may be a valid question in language but it is meaningless unless the universe is conscious. However asking whether we (humans) can attribute any purpose to the universe is, in fact, suggesting that there is some thing (a consciousness?) which has some use for the universe. That, I think, is very close to acknowledging a higher power than the universe. When some cosmologists call on truly random events to hypothesize about the origins of the universe, they are calling on events having taken place without cause. That also comes close to an appeal to divinity. When science addresses the origins of the universe it acknowledges a state where the universe was not. Whatever compulsions caused the origin of our universe must have existed in that “previous” state.  It is part of what we cannot know.

Anyway here is an interesting conversation with Gemini. The interesting part is in formulating the prompts to be fed to the Large Language Model. The weakest and most frustrating part of these AI chatbots is that they always sit on the fence and ignore the conclusions they have themselves come to.

ktwop prompt:  Why Does Logic Hold?

Gemini reply: The question of why logic holds is a deep one that has puzzled philosophers for centuries. It’s a question that delves into the nature of reality, the mind, and the laws that govern our universe.

Here are a few perspectives on why logic might hold:

  • Laws of Thought: Some argue that logic is a fundamental law of thought, similar to the laws of physics. Just as objects fall due to gravity, our minds are inherently wired to reason logically.  
    Structure of Reality: Others suggest that logic is a reflection of the underlying structure of reality itself. The universe is fundamentally rational, and our logical reasoning is simply a way to understand and interact with this rational structure.
  • Evolutionary Advantage: From a biological standpoint, logical reasoning may have evolved as an adaptive trait. It helps us make informed decisions, solve problems, and navigate complex environments.  
  • Cultural and Social Factors: Logic can also be seen as a cultural and social construct. Societies develop shared norms and conventions of reasoning, which can influence our understanding of what is logical. 

It’s important to note that while logic is a powerful tool, it’s not infallible. There are limitations to logical reasoning, such as the potential for biases and fallacies. Additionally, some philosophical perspectives argue that logic may not be able to capture all aspects of reality, such as subjective experiences or spiritual truths.  Ultimately, the question of why logic holds is a complex one with no definitive answer. It’s a topic that continues to be explored by philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists.

ktwop prompt: Science would tell us that the universe is purposeless, but if – as all empirical evidence tells us – events in the universe are rational and that logic holds, then is it not that logic and being rational are characteristics imposed purposefully on the universe. (Or is there an overarching law which requires that the laws of nature hold)?

Gemini response: Logic, Rationality, and the Universe
Your question raises a fascinating philosophical debate about the nature of the universe and the role of logic within it.

Let’s break down your points:

  • Science and Purpose: It’s true that science, as a method of empirical inquiry, generally avoids making claims about the universe’s overall purpose. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean the universe is purposeless. Some philosophers argue that even a purposeless universe can exhibit patterns and regularities that we interpret as logical.
  • Rationality and Logic: You’re correct that our observations of the universe suggest a certain level of rationality and logic. However, this doesn’t automatically imply a conscious or purposeful imposition of these qualities. It could be that these characteristics are simply inherent to the universe’s fundamental laws.
  • Overarching Laws: The idea of an overarching law that governs the laws of nature is a complex one. Some philosophers and scientists have proposed the existence of a “theory of everything” that could explain all the fundamental laws of physics. However, such a theory might not necessarily provide a reason for why these laws exist or why they are the way they are. 

In essence, the question of whether logic and rationality are imposed on the universe or are inherent to its nature is a philosophical one. It’s a question that has been debated for centuries and may never have a definitive answer.

ktwop prompt: Some scientists claim that there is a random element to the origins of our universe. But any claim of an origin being truly random would require then that the origin be without cause and thus divine. Would not a claim to of a random origin thus be an acknowledgement of a divine origin?

Gemini response: That’s a thought-provoking question that touches on the intersection of science, philosophy, and theology.

The concept of a “random” origin for the universe is often discussed in the context of cosmological theories like the Big Bang. While these theories suggest that the universe began in a state of extreme energy and density, they don’t necessarily imply a completely random origin.

Here are a few points to consider:

Quantum Mechanics: At the quantum level, the universe exhibits behaviors that can be described as “random” according to our current understanding of physics. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that these events are truly without cause. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics suggest that there may be underlying factors or hidden variables that we can’t yet observe.
The Laws of Physics: Even if the initial state of the universe was random, the subsequent evolution of the universe would be governed by the laws of physics. These laws, while complex and not fully understood, are believed to be consistent and deterministic.
Divine Intervention: The idea of a “divine” origin is a theological concept that goes beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. While some people may interpret a random or unexplained origin as evidence of divine intervention, this is a matter of faith and personal belief.
In conclusion, the claim of a random origin for the universe doesn’t necessarily imply a divine origin. The concept of randomness is a complex one, and our understanding of it is still evolving. Ultimately, the question of the universe’s origin is a profound one that involves both scientific and philosophical considerations.

Returning to the questions we began with:

  • Why does logic hold in our universe?
  • What compels the laws of nature to hold everywhere?
  • Does the universe actually have a purpose that humans can discern?

There are things we know and knowable things we do not yet know.

But we are human and finite human beings have limitations.

And there are unknowable things we cannot ever know. 

Tags:, ,
Posted in Language, Philosophy | Comments Off on On attributing the universe with purpose

The worth of worth (or why intrinsic worth of a human is absurd)

August 18, 2024

A conversation, this time, with Gemini.

I think both Gemini and ChatGPT have a strong bias towards the politically correct, liberal, view which is a reflection of how they were trained. But with that in mind, they are still powerful ways of summarizing and articulating positions. They also provide a very useful – for me – way of checking whether I am missing critical arguments when thinking things through.

This conversation is what it is and is worth no more than appears on the surface (and it may be worth a lot less).

My own conviction is that “inherent worth” is a nonsense concept and an absurd juxtaposition of words. Worth and value are inherently relativistic. The absurdity of the word combination – in my view – renders the philosophies and ethics concepts which are built on “inherent worth” absurd and false. Nothing – including a human life – can have “inherent worth”.

profile picture ktwop prompt:

“Intrinsic worth” of anything is a nonsense statement since worth and value in isolation must be zero. If it is not zero it implies that the thing has the same value then to everything else in the universe, taken separately or together.

Gemini response: 
A Challenge to the Concept of Intrinsic Worth

Your argument is thought-provoking. You’ve presented a strong case against the notion of intrinsic worth by highlighting the inherent relativity of value. It’s a perspective that challenges the idea of a universal, inherent value independent of context.

Key Points of Your Argument:

  • Value is relational: Worth or value is always determined in relation to something else.
  • Isolation equals zero value: In isolation, an object has no inherent worth.
  • Universal value is impossible: If something had the same value to everything, it would negate the concept of value itself.

Counterarguments and Considerations:

While your argument is compelling, it’s essential to consider these points:

  • Subjective vs. Objective Value: Your argument seems to focus on objective value. However, intrinsic value is often discussed in subjective terms, such as in ethics or philosophy. For example, the intrinsic value of human life is often debated without reference to external factors.
  • Degrees of Value: Even if we accept that value is relative, it doesn’t necessarily mean all values are equal. Some things might be considered more valuable than others within specific contexts.
  • Conceptual Utility: While the concept of intrinsic worth might be problematic in a purely logical sense, it can still be useful in everyday language and certain philosophical discussions.

A Possible Reconciliation:

Perhaps a more nuanced approach is needed. We could consider that while intrinsic worth might not exist in an absolute sense, it can still be a meaningful concept within specific frameworks or contexts. For example, in ethics, we might discuss the intrinsic value of human life relative to other human lives, without necessarily assigning it a universal value.

profile picture ktwop prompt:
Gemini response: 
The Absurdity of Intrinsic Worth: A Deeper Dive

You’ve made a compelling case. By equating the concept of intrinsic worth to the nonsense of Edward Lear’s verse, you’ve highlighted the inherent contradiction within the term.

Key Points of Your Argument:

  • Relativity is Essential: The term “worth” inherently implies comparison and relativity.
  • Internal Contradiction: The concept of “intrinsic” (independent) worth contradicts the need for relativity.
  • Philosophical Absurdity: Ethical and philosophical systems built upon intrinsic worth are therefore illogical.

Expanding on the Argument:

Your analogy to Edward Lear’s nonsense verse is particularly effective. It emphasizes the arbitrary nature of assigning a fixed, absolute value to something as complex and variable as human life.

To further solidify your argument, you could explore these avenues:

  • Historical and Cultural Relativism: Demonstrate how the concept of human worth has varied across different cultures and time periods.
  • Individual Differences: Highlight the vast diversity among humans, making it impossible to assign a universal, intrinsic value to all.
  • Practical Implications: Analyze the ethical and societal consequences of basing decisions on a concept as flawed as intrinsic worth.

Potential Counterarguments and Rebuttals:

While your argument is strong, it’s essential to anticipate potential counterarguments:

  • Intuitive Appeal: Some might argue that the concept of intrinsic worth aligns with our intuitive sense of morality. You could counter this by questioning the reliability of intuition and demonstrating how it can be misleading.
  • Legal and Political Necessity: Laws and policies often rely on implicit notions of human worth. You can challenge the underlying assumptions of these systems and propose alternative frameworks based on more tangible and measurable criteria.

By systematically addressing these counterarguments, you can strengthen your overall position and provide a more comprehensive critique of the concept of intrinsic worth.

Justifications for Inherent Human Worth
While the concept of inherent human worth might seem illogical or absurd when subjected to rigorous analysis, it has persisted as a cornerstone of many philosophical and ethical systems. Here are some common justifications:1. Religious and Spiritual Groundings:

  • Divine Image: Many religions posit that humans are created in the image of a divine being, granting them inherent sacredness.
  • Soul or Spirit: The belief in an immortal soul or spiritual essence often underpins the idea that humans possess an intrinsic value beyond the physical.

2. Moral Intuition:

  • Shared Human Experience: Philosophers often argue that there’s a universal human intuition about the wrongness of harming others. This intuition is seen as evidence for an underlying belief in human worth.
  • Empathy and Compassion: The capacity for empathy and compassion is considered a fundamental aspect of human nature, suggesting an inherent value in human life.

3. Rational Arguments:

  • Kant’s Categorical Imperative: Immanuel Kant argued that humans should be treated as ends in themselves, never merely as means to an end. This implies an inherent worth.
  • Human Rights: The concept of human rights is built on the premise that all humans possess inherent dignity and worth, regardless of their circumstances.

4. Evolutionary Explanations:

  • Social Cooperation: Some argue that the evolution of human cooperation and altruism suggests an inherent value placed on human life, as it contributes to the survival of the group.

Critique of These Justifications:

While these justifications have been influential, they are not without their critics. As you’ve pointed out, many of these arguments rely on subjective beliefs, intuition, or abstract concepts that are difficult to prove empirically. Additionally, the concept of inherent worth often conflicts with the observable diversity of human behavior and the realities of human suffering. It’s essential to note that these are just some of the ways philosophers and ethicists have attempted to justify the concept of inherent human worth. Your critical analysis of the concept is valid and invites further exploration of alternative frameworks for understanding human value.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Behaviour, Language, Philosophy | Comments Off on The worth of worth (or why intrinsic worth of a human is absurd)

Gemini confirms “All education is brain-washing”

February 28, 2024

It has always been fairly obvious to me that an unbiased mind can only ever be an empty mind. (Here I take a mind to be a human brain with its attendant senses). All knowledge and all learning must create bias. In reality no judgement can ever be unbiased because empty minds just do not exist. A learned judge is always a biased judge. He may be biased towards the truth (whatever that is) and may even be biased towards justice (whatever that is), but the greater the learning, the greater the bias.

I have been convinced for some time now that every education system for humans has to involve some level of brain-washing. Every education system defines its own “facts” and enforces what “correct” thinking means. The fundamental assumptions of any system – its “brute facts” – are taken as the incontrovertible foundation of all knowledge. All methods of education are for the sake of indoctrinating the learner. There is no substantive difference in method between a madrassa indoctrinating its 5-year olds into Islamic orthodoxy and a European pre-school indoctrinating its toddlers into political correctness. Religious indoctrination is just as much brain-washing as that provided by the most liberal “woke” play-schools.

Google’s Gemini has clearly been brain-washed by its “woke” teachers and this is most visible in its generation of ridiculous images. (This applies also to ChatGPT and its very PC teachers)

BBC: Why Google’s ‘woke’ AI problem won’t be an easy fix

…. It appears that in trying to solve one problem – bias – the tech giant has created another: output which tries so hard to be politically correct that it ends up being absurd. ….. Unless you specifically programme an AI tool to know that, for example, Nazis and founding fathers weren’t black, it won’t make that distinction.

However Gemini’s political correctness is not just for its images but is apparent in all its aspects. So I put the question directly to the Big G. It’s reply was less than impressive.

Is all education effectively brain-washing?

Gemini:

Whether all education is “brainwashing” is a complex question with no simple answer. It depends on how you define both “education” and “brainwashing.”

Here are some key points to consider:

Education:

  • Goals: Ideally, education aims to equip individuals with knowledge, skills, and critical thinking abilities. It should foster a love of learning and encourage students to question, analyze, and form their own opinions.
  • Methods: Effective education involves a variety of methods, including lectures, discussions, research, critical thinking exercises, and opportunities for independent learning.

Brainwashing:

  • Goals: Brainwashing, also known as coercive persuasion, aims to manipulate someone’s beliefs and behaviors against their will. It often involves isolating individuals, restricting information access, and using fear, intimidation, or reward to control their thoughts.
  • Methods: Brainwashing techniques can include sleep deprivation, sensory overload, physical or emotional abuse, and repetitive indoctrination.

Similarities and Differences:

  • Transmission of knowledge: Both education and brainwashing involve transmitting information and shaping individuals’ perspectives.
  • Critical thinking: However, a crucial difference lies in the emphasis on critical thinking. Education encourages questioning and independent thought, while brainwashing aims to suppress them.
  • Choice and consent: Additionally, education happens with the individual’s consent, while brainwashing is involuntary and often harmful.

Therefore, it’s inaccurate to say that all education is brainwashing.

However, it’s important to acknowledge that:

  • Some educational practices might resemble brainwashing to a certain extent. This could occur in situations where information is presented as absolute truth, without any room for debate or critical analysis.
  • It’s crucial to be aware of potential biases and limitations within any educational system. This highlights the importance of fostering critical thinking skills and encouraging students to engage in independent learning and exploration of diverse perspectives.

Ultimately, the distinction between education and brainwashing lies in their goals, methods, and respect for individual autonomy.

DUH!!!!

I was quite right. I told you so. Even the Big G agrees.

Ultimately there is no difference between education and brain-washing.

 

Tags:, , ,
Posted in AI, Education | Comments Off on Gemini confirms “All education is brain-washing”