Leaked Documents Show Nvidia Scraping ‘A Human Lifetime’ of Videos Per Day to Train AI : technology

[-] R00bot 43 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I feel like the amount of training data required for these AIs serves as a pretty compelling argument as to why AI is clearly nowhere near human intelligence. It shouldn't take thousands of human lifetimes of data to train an AI if it's truly near human-level intelligence. In fact, I think it's an argument for them not being intelligent whatsoever. With that much training data, everything that could be asked of them should be in the training data. And yet they still fail at any task not in their data.

Put simply; a human needs less than 1 lifetime of training data to be more intelligent than AI. If it hasn't already solved it, I don't think throwing more training data/compute at the problem will solve this.

[-] rdri@lemmy.world 30 points 3 months ago

There is no "intelligence", ai is a pr word. Just a language model that feeds on a lot of data.

[-] R00bot 8 points 3 months ago

Oh yeah we're 100% agreed on that. I'm thinking of the AI evangelicals who will argue tooth and nail that LLMs have "emergent properties" of intelligence, and that it's simply an issue of training data/compute power before we'll get some digital god being. Unfortunately these people exist, and they're depressingly common. They've definitely reduced in numbers since AI hype has died down though.

[-] Hunter232@programming.dev 13 points 3 months ago

Humans have the advantage of billions of years of evolution.

[-] Cyteseer@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

"ai" also has the advantage of billions of years of evolution.

[-] noobdoomguy8658@feddit.org 4 points 3 months ago

We're very proficient at walking, but somehow haven't produced a walking home or anything like that.

It's not very linear.

[-] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago

Definitely not the same thing. Just because you can make use of the end result of major efforts does not somehow magically give you access to all the knowledge from those major efforts.

You can use a smart phone easily, but that doesn't mean you magically know how to make one.

[-] stupidcasey@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

You’ve had the entire history of evolution to get the instinct you have today.

Nature Vs Nurture is a huge ongoing debate.

Just because it takes longer to train doesn’t mean it’s not intelligent, kids develop slower than chimps.

Also intelligent doesn’t really mean anything, I personally think Intelligence is the ability to distillate unusable amounts of raw data and intuit a result beneficial to one’s self. But very few people agree with me.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 4 points 3 months ago

A human lifetime worth of video is not anywhere close to equalling a human lifetime of actual corporeal existence, even in the perfect scenario where the AI is as capable as a human brain.

[-] R00bot 3 points 3 months ago

Strange to equate the other senses to performance in intellectual tasks but sure. Do you think feeding data from smells, touch, taste, etc. into an AI along with the video will suddenly make it intelligent? No, it will just make it more likely to guess what something smells like. I think it's very clear that our current approach to AI is missing something much more fundamental to thought than that, it's not just a dataset problem.

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 35 points 3 months ago

Properly following licensing, right?

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 28 points 3 months ago

No, see, because it's "learning like a human", and everybody knows that you're allowed to bypass any licensing for learning. /s

But seriously I don't know how they make the jump to these conclusions either.

[-] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

This is a massive strawman argument. No one is saying you shouldn't have a license to view the content in order to train an AI on it. Most of the information used to train these models is publicly available and licensed for public viewing.

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 21 points 3 months ago

Just because something is available for public viewing does not mean it's licensed for anything except personal use.

The strawman here is that since physical people benefit from personal use exceptions in the law, machine learning software should too. But why should they? Since when is a piece of software ran by a corporation equivalent to an individual person?

[-] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 months ago

A tangentially related but good example of this sort of thing is BluRays and community movie nights (like setting up a projector in a park).

Most of these movie nights are de facto illegal, as even though you own the BluRay, it is not licensed for public showings, just for personal use. Obviously no one gives enough of a shit to enforce this against small groups, especially if they aren't making money off it, but if a theater started offering showings of shit the owner just bought on BluRay or UHD disks, it wouldn't last too long.

Similar thing here. Just because you can access the content to view it yourself doesn't mean you have the rights to do more than that with it. As an individual, you're likely fine to break those rules. As a giant fucking corporation, it's time for you to pay up.

[-] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Copyright licensing allows the owner to control how a work is distributed, not how it's consumed. "Personal use" just means that you can't turn around and redistribute a work that you've obtained. Not that you're not allowed to consume it in a corporate setting.

[-] FunnyUsername@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Consuming is not the same thing as training. A machine is not a consumer, it is a tool.

[-] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago

A program of machine can be a consumer of something, although if you want to be technical you could say the person using the machine is the consumer. In actual computer science we talk about programs consuming things all the time.

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Training literally is consuming. A copyright license doesn't get to dictate what computer programs the work is allowed to be used with. There's a ton a entertainment mega corps that would love for that to be the case, though.

You're saying that you're not allowed to do a statistical analysis on a copyrighted work. It's nonsense. It's well-established that copyright does not prevent that kind of use.

[-] FunnyUsername@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

What makes you think copyright law doesn't apply to companies using copy written data to sell and profit off of? That is not the case. Also, you're putting words in my mouth. Feel free to read my other replies on this thread but I don't feel like repeating myself, but I think it's clear I'm not saying computers aren't allowed to process data that's absurd.

[-] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Because that's not what copyright is for. It exists to give the creator exclusive rights over distribution. That's it. So unless the company is planning to distribute the work and they obtained a copy willingly and legally distributed to them, then copyright is the wrong law to lean on.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 6 points 3 months ago

Copyright licensing allows the owner to control how a work is distributed, not how it's consumed.

First of all, that's incorrect.

Secondly, by default you have zero rights to someone else's work. If something doesn't explicitly grant you rights, you have none. If there's a law or license, and if it's applicable to you, you get exactly what's specified in there.

The "personal use" or "fair use" exceptions in some places grant some basic rights but they are very narrow in scope and generally applicable only to individuals.

[-] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

I mean, it's in the name. The right to make copies. Not to be glib, but it really is

A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive legal right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.

You may notice a conspicuous absence of control over how a copied work is used, short of distributing it. You can reencode it, compress it, decompress it, make a word cloud, statistically analyze its tone, anything you want as long as you're not redistributing the work or an adaptation (which has a pretty limited meaning as well). "Personal use" and "fair use" are stipulations that weaken a copyright owner's control over the work, not giving them new rights above and beyond copyright. And that's a great thing. You get to do whatever you want with the things you own.

You don't have a right to other people's work. That's what copyright enables. But that's beside the point. The owner doesn't get to say what you use a work for that they've distributed to you.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] 31337@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago

Information wants to be free.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 34 points 3 months ago

Humans don't live that long. That's only about 1.5 million 30 min videos, which isn't a huge amount for a whole day's worth of scraping.

[-] Irremarkable@fedia.io 12 points 3 months ago

Yeah this is honestly an order of magnitude less that I would've thought

[-] Infynis@midwest.social 5 points 3 months ago

Maybe they're running out

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Kekzkrieger@feddit.org 32 points 3 months ago

instead of focusing on their products and improving them for everyone, some shitty ceo is pushing their shitty ai agenda down everyones throat.

[-] Zetta@mander.xyz 4 points 3 months ago

Nvidia's biggest product is absolutely AI by a massive landslide, I'm pretty sure I read that the point of them downloading these videos and doing the training is to build a pipeline for their AI users to do the same with their own shit. (Can't be bothered to double-check cuz I really don't care)

So they aren't downloading all this video to make a crazy AI model. They're downloading all this video to make a tool for their AI customers to use, you may not agree but improving their product is exactly what they're doing.

[-] Agrivar@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Can't be bothered to double-check cuz I really don't care

For FUCK SAKE, why do you even bother posting your garbage opinions then? and with such authority too!

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] SomeGuy69@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

So they use VMs to simulate user accounts, in future this will be blocked and whatever new AI startup is there won't have the option to do so. Competition blocked. Forever.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

There's only a handful of video datasets and all of it is owned by Google through YouTube or big Hollywood companies like Disney and Netflix.

These companies are foaming at the mouth with rage thinking about what generative AI will do to their industry and how much it will help the currently non existant indie one. They will do whatever it takes to fence in the playbox and make sure they get to be the toll man.

This was never about AI getting to live or not, but who gets to own it. 404media is essentially a mouthpiece for these corporations, willingly or not, and the strengthening of copyright laws will not help the consumers or the small time creators. The only exception being laws that force copy left licenses onto models but that's not what is being pushed right now, as well as aocs Deepfake act which is well thought out imo.

Anyone should be permitted to train on YouTube and Netflix data, and Nvidia might even open source it in any case.

[-] Sconrad122@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago

Nvidia does not have a strong history of open sourcing things, to say the least. That last bit sounds like pure hopium

[-] trollbearpig@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

The guy you are replying to is in all AI posts defending AIs. He is probably heavily invested in this BS or being paid for it, don't waste your time with him.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Tbh, someone has to. Have you ever asked yourself if the intense hate AI gets and how 99% of articles are against it is organic?

There's a handful of companies that are poised to win big if they can put up a fence around AI while making sure the public can't run strong models. There is an intense media campaign to make sure the public thinks either AI is dangerous (so they can be the only ones legally allowed to distribute them) or that AI is theft (So they can be the only ones to afford building them).

Do not let yourself be manipulated, almost all strengthening of copyrights related to AI is completely against our interests.

And no, I'm not getting paid lol. I have a vested interest because I use generative technology for work and for fun in my free time. I'm also interested in not handing out our whole economy on a silver platter to Google and Microsoft, if I can maybe help with a couple of comments a week, I will. Why don't you explain why I'm wrong instead of sending out baseless accusations?

[-] trollbearpig@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Nah my man, you are either brainwashed or are being paid hahaha. Is copyright a mess? Of fucking course, I haven't meet a single person (except crazy ass libertarians funnily enough hahaha) that likes copyright. Are big corporations using copyright to exploit artists, create monopolies, and generally being dicks? Again, of fucking course.

But anyone, like you, saying that we should just let AIs destroy copyright effectively is a fucking prick, that simple. And your agruments are dissingenous at best or outright lies. For example, just as big copyright holder companies are pushing to strengthen copyright law, the big tech companies are pushing for effectively destroying copyright through AI models. I have seen you pushing in multiple thread for open source models like that's a solution. But if you were a serious person researching about the software open source community you would see that pretty much no one there agrees with your position because it would effectively destroy the copyleft open source licenses. After all, if an "AI" model, open source or not, is allowed to just "train" on my AGPL code and spit it back (with minor modifications at best) to an engineer in AWS that's it for my project. Amazon will do the Amazon thing and steal the project. So say goodbye to any software freedom we have.

And let's be 100% clear here, this is not being pushed by the evil copyright holders like you seem to imply (and they are totally evil just to be clear hahahah). This is being pushed by the big tech companies and people like you spreading their propaganda. The fact that the copyright holders happen to be in the right this time is just a broken clock being right and all that, but it's still good that they are pushing back to big tech. I do agree we have to keep an eye on them, the objective here can't be to make copyright bigger, just to close the "loophole" that big tech companies are exploting to steal everything.

People like you who want to destroy copyright without offering any alternatives to allow creatives to work in a market are either missinformed or just assholes. Again, of fucking course it's not an ideal system, but going full kamikaze and just destroying any possibility for artists and creatives of making a living with their work is the most evil thing goung on right now, so bad that the big copyright holders happen to fall on the less bad side this time hahaha. And all for what? So people can be lied to by dumb chatbots? Or so people can create mediocre derivative "art" without putting any effort? Or so we can get mediocre code autocomplete that is subtly wrong all the time? Is fucking ridiculous.

[-] 31337@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

After all, if an “AI” model, open source or not, is allowed to just “train” on my AGPL code and spit it back (with minor modifications at best) to an engineer in AWS that’s it for my project. Amazon will do the Amazon thing and steal the project. So say goodbye to any software freedom we have.

An engineer at AWS can already just copy your code, make minor modifications, and use it. I would think the same legal recourse would apply if it was outputted from an LLM or just a copy-paste? This seems like a tangential issue to whether the LLM was trained on your code or not (not training on your code obviously reduces the probability of the LLM spitting it back out near-verbatim though). Personally, I don't see anything wrong with anyone using public code to build statistical models. And I think the pay-to-scrape models that Reddit, Xitter, and others are employing will help big tech build the "moat" they're looking for. Big tech is asking for AI regulation for similar reasons.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] riodoro1@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Can we stop with this bullshit? Nobody will buy into it. WE DON’T WANT IT.

[-] sunbytes@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

It's not for you as a consumer.

It's to reduce your usefulness as a worker.

Which would be lovely, if our value wasn't calculated by our usefulness to the market.

[-] noobdoomguy8658@feddit.org 4 points 3 months ago

Obligatory fuck AI and the illeterate bros pushing it.

What kind of videos, though? A lot of such material is very far from being proper educational material that we show other people to really teach them much, let alone educate them well enough to be anywhere trustworthy. This is a very processed material, with years of preparation once you consider the prior education of the individuals involved in the creative process - think of the past experiences silently influencing them, their initial knowledge on the subject obtained from somewhat basic facts from school or otherwise, their misconceptions, iterations that nobody knows about, and many other things that we don't usually directly associate with the act of working on something like a video, but that eventually do dictate a lot of the decisions and opinions put into it.

It's one thing that the AI has no intelligence in it whatsoever, but the fact that it's being pumped with information and "knowledge" in basically the reverse order doesn't help it become any better.

On the other hand, the entire thing is not about making something that works well, but something that sells well. And then there's people putting too much faith into the thing and trusting it with way too much stuff than they should (which is also the case with a lot of other tech, though, admittedly).

Some things of today are so damn unexciting.

[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

I hope they aren’t on Comcast.

[-] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

Can relate, I watched the English patient once.

Technology

Our Rules

Approved Bots