Skip Navigation

User banner
User banner
200fifty @ 200fifty @awful.systems
Posts
0
Comments
6
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • You can’t feed generative AI on ‘bad’ data then filter it for only ‘good’ data

    Jump

  • The really annoying thing is, the people behind AI surely ought to know all this already. I remember just a few years ago when DALL-E mini came out, and they'd purposefully not trained it on pictures of human faces so you couldn't use it to generate pictures of human faces -- they'd come out all garbled. What's changed isn't that they don't know this stuff -- it's that the temptation of money means they don't care anymore

  • Stubsack: weekly thread for sneers not worth an entire post, week ending Sunday 18 August 2024

    Jump

  • Can AI companies legally ingest copyrighted materials found on the internet to train their models, and use them to pump out commercial products that they then profit from? Or, as the tech companies claim, does generative AI output constitute fair use?

    This is kind of the central issue to me honestly. I'm not a lawyer, just a (non-professional) artist, but it seems to me like "using artistic works without permission of the original creators in order to create commercial content that directly competes with and destroys the market for the original work" is extremely not fair use. In fact it's kind of a prototypically unfair use.

    Meanwhile Midjourney and OpenAI are over here like "uhh, no copyright infringement intended!!!" as though "fair use" is a magic word you say that makes the thing you're doing suddenly okay. They don't seem to have very solid arguments justifying them other than "AI learns like a person!" (false) and "well google books did something that's not really the same at all that one time".

    I dunno, I know that legally we don't know which way this is going to go, because the ai people presumably have very good lawyers, but something about the way everyone seems to frame this as "oh, both sides have good points! who will turn out to be right in the end!" really bugs me for some reason. Like, it seems to me that there's a notable asymmetry here!

  • The Google AI isn’t hallucinating about glue in pizza, it’s just over indexing an 11 year old Reddit post by a dude named fucksmith.

    Jump

  • Google wants you to agree to a program to reduce web tracking by just letting Google have all your browsing data directly

    Jump

  • For real though, we must have reached Peak Ad at some point, or at least we're deep into the realm of diminishing returns. This can't go on forever, right? I mean there's a finite number of things that need to be advertised and a finite number of people with a finite amount of time and patience to look at ads. How long until it all collapses?

  • Google wants you to agree to a program to reduce web tracking by just letting Google have all your browsing data directly

    Jump

  • I like how the assumption seems to be that the thing users object to about "websites track your browsing history around the web in order to show you targeted ads" is... the "websites" part