admin

joined 2 years ago
[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Hey, you do you. I just want to give you the feedback that when you repeatedly post something as blatant as a full page screenshot, it really stands out, especially on mobile. It might give off some fanatical vibes (in the original sense of the word).

Do with that what you will.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You sure like posting that screenshot, don't you?

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 1 year ago

That is one bad mofo.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The world wide web is more than social media.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Why?

Once this passes, OpenAI can't build ChatGPT on the same ("stolen") dataset. How does that cement their position?

Taking someone's creation (without their permission) and turning it into a commercial venture, without giving payment or even attribution is immoral.

If a creator (in the widest meaning of the word) is fine with their works being used as such - great, go ahead. But otherwise you'll just have to wait before the work becomes public domain (which obviously does not mean publicly available).

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't think so either, but to me that is the purpose.

Somewhere between small time personal-use ML and commercial exploitation, there should be ethical sourcing of input data, rather than the current method of "scrape all you can find, fuck copyright" that OpenAI & co are getting away with.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 14 points 1 year ago

I think you'll get to hold on to that feeling.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 9 points 1 year ago

Good find, that explains.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That the person who reported it used a ML to try and find the setting to attempt to solve it, did not fill me with confidence of their abilities to manage this. They later admitted that they did have it enabled in some form.

They also never became specific about how well Gemini interpreted their tax result file. Did it give the proper number verbatim? That's pretty damming. Did it just reply "You're not getting a tax return"? That's just 50/50 odds.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 35 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Weird. The original article says "accused", but on Lemmy they're already found guilty.

[–] admin@lemmy.my-box.dev 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I respectfully disagree. I think small time AI (read: pretty much all the custom models on hugging face) will get a giant boost out of this, since they can get away with training on "custom" data sets - since they are too small to be held accountable.

However, those models will become worthless to enterprise level models, since they wouldn't be able to account for the legality. In other words, once you make big bucks of of AI you'll have to prove your models were sourced properly. But if you're just creating a model for small time use, you can get away with a lot.

view more: ‹ prev next ›