zlacker

In wonder if copyrighted content will be needed at all in the future of AI training.

AlphaZero learned to play chess via self-play, not by reading books about chess.

Why couldn't the same happen for art for example?

For coding, won't a sufficiently advanced neural net be able to figure out how to use a programming language when given just the documentation?

And when most of our interactions are with AI, it will learn from our conversations with it. Asking some AI system why feature X was removed from programming language Y in version Z teaches it something. The next person who asks it which feature was removed from Y in version Z might be told "X". Without the AI system ever having to read about it. The interaction with AI could become a self-learning loop in and on itself.

>>mg+(OP)
> AlphaZero learned to play chess via self-play, not by reading books about chess.

> Why couldn't the same happen for art for example?

> For coding, won't a sufficiently advanced neural net be able to figure out how to use a programming language when given just the documentation?

some domains are too complex and large to be cracked that way.

>>riku_i+w1
For humans, it works.

>>mg+a6
I don't think a human deprived from birth of interaction with cultural artifacts or other people would be that much more intelligent than a chimpanzee.

>>mg+(OP)
> Why couldn't the same happen for art for example?

For starters, because "art" does not have an objective scoring function.

>>mg+(OP)
Chess has a very straightforward definition of objectively correct and incorrect moves; there is no such thing for art. Though I have to wonder how many rounds of looking at random garbage and rating it you'd have to do for some kind of supervised learning to eventually yield coherent output...

>>mg+a6
human brain may still be orders of magnitude more powerful computation tool compared to modern GPU clusters, and you have 8B semiorganized humans on the planet.