The scale is the difference and who is harmed.
Billion dollar company losing $100. Who cares?!
Billion dollar company stealing from all artists in the world. We care.
The scale is the difference and who is harmed.
Billion dollar company losing $100. Who cares?!
Billion dollar company stealing from all artists in the world. We care.
Points 2 and 3. Basically make restrictions on normal user accounts which are fine for humans but that will make bots swear and curse.
Unless you mean “what should the registration process be” I think API keys via a user account would do.
…but if they don’t know I expect them to say so. An LLM isn’t trustworthy until it says “I don’t know”.
Exactly the reason I suggest it.
An LLMs “intent” is always to give you a plausible response even if it doesn’t have the “knowledge”. The same behaviour in a human would be classed as lying IMHO.
Make bot accounts a separate type of account so legitimate bots don’t appear as users. These can’t vote, are filtered out of post counts and users can be presented with more filtering option for them. Bot accounts are clearly marked.
Heavily rate limit any API that enables posting to a normal user account.
Make having a bot on a human user account bannable offence and enforce it strongly.
Agreed, It wouldn’t be a good thing. However it’s their own failures and mismanagement that are causing it.
It’s certainly arguable that the algorithm constitutes an editorial process and so that opens them up to libel laws and to liability.
Fair point.
Stupid sharks loose their teeth, not their fins that actually do the work.
Errr…wat!!!
The shark dies either way.
Under what law?
UK currently holds the people that post things liable for their own words. X, the platform, just relays what is said. Same as Lemmy. Same as Mastodon.
If you ban X I don’t see why those other platforms wouldn’t be next.
Now should people/organisations/companies leave X? Absolutely! Evacuate like it’s a house of fire. Should it be shut down by legal means? No.
Training data is the source. Not the 20 lines of python that get supplied with a model.
A generative AIs only purpose is to generate “works”. So it’s only purpose in consuming “work” is to use them as reference. It exists to produce derivative works. Therefore the person feading the original work into the machine is the one making the choice on how that work will be used.
A human can consume a “work” for no other reason but to admire it, be entertained by it, be educated by it, to evoke an emotion and finally to produce another work based on it. Here the consumer of the work is the one deciding how it will be used. They are the ones responsible.
I would disagree, because I don’t see the research into AI as something of value to preserve.
People talk about open source models, but there’s no such thing. They are all black boxes where you have no idea what went into them.
They don’t do it because they claim that there isn’t enough public domain data… But let’s be honest, nobody has tried because nobody wants a machine that isn’t able to reference anything in the last 100 years.
Dumb question: why do you feel you need to defend billion dollar companies getting even richer off somebody else’s work?
Also Van Gogh’s works are public domain now.
That’s a good mental backflip.
It might now.
Video Cameras
I don’t view free-use models as open-source. Open-source means I can rebuild it from scratch and I can’t because I don’t know what the training data is, or have access to it.