“You can't be expected to have a successful AI program when every article, book or anything else that you've read or studied, you're supposed to pay for”, President Trump says
Technology
193
Beiträge
143
Kommentatoren
16
Aufrufe
-
This post did not contain any content.
So let's pretend we give them all the training data they want for free (which they already have taken illegally)
The buisness model is still non-viable because the energy costs far outweigh any subscriptions they can get. And the tech isn't even good enough for people to want to subscribe at the current prices.
-
Theres a common misconception that downloading data is illegal when it's generally sharing is what gets you in trouble. There are very few people who get fined for piracy downloads around the world.
But ... Sharing is Caring ... Gotta keep that ratio above 20!
-
We shouldn't be calling these AI programs successful. In the slightest. They're counterfeiting human thought and work.
I know it's popular to hate on LLMs here at Lemmy, but what is "Artificial Intelligence" if not "Counterfeiting Thought"? Those words map to each other pretty nicely
-
Shut up orange paedophile.
haha ur so brave
-
This post did not contain any content.
Hopefully this helps create precedent to stop enforcing copyright for everyone
-
I know it's popular to hate on LLMs here at Lemmy, but what is "Artificial Intelligence" if not "Counterfeiting Thought"? Those words map to each other pretty nicely
It was intentional.
-
This post did not contain any content.
who told him about copyright
-
I know it's popular to hate on LLMs here at Lemmy, but what is "Artificial Intelligence" if not "Counterfeiting Thought"? Those words map to each other pretty nicely
Actually, let me add to my statement of it being intentional.
There are things that AI applications can do that humans can't.
AI is all about analyzing large sets of variables and finding things. Take recent studies in pathology where AI can find the patterns of certain disease in tissue specimens. This only works because the enormous dataset that was provided was already vetted by pathologists. I would argue this isn't counterfeiting human thought. This is enhancing an already utilized algorithm trained by doctors. Remember, a pathologist still needs to put their license on the line if they agree with the AI findings.
There is NO accountability in LLMs. To many people it looks like it is thinking, it has understood what the person has said, and considered boundaries that exist in our minds, but maybe not communicated to the LLM.
Thats why I call these AI programs unsuccessful and counterfeit. They're giving users made by possibly unverified and unreliable data with no accountability.
-
Actually, I feel a bit dirty about this. Literal decades of file sharing built huge archives that they have used to build their monsters, and also contributing to things like Wikipedia and open source software. Everything good and counterculture we did is now being monetized and used to boil the oceans.
Information should be free. Don’t feel bad because someone abused something good towards a bad end.
The problem here isn’t archives, it’s “AI” and the people behind it.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Not sure why the knee jerk hate on this one. I like the idea of opening up academic articles and other materials for free and open use.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Who cares what HE says of all people
-
Remember kids: Copyright is only for the rich.
For the poor? the rich dont pay copyright, only grandma who downloaded nothing else matter's mp3
-
We shouldn't be calling these AI programs successful. In the slightest. They're counterfeiting human thought and work.
Sometime I wish lemmy had ahah react
-
Not sure why the knee jerk hate on this one. I like the idea of opening up academic articles and other materials for free and open use.
Based brain rot pirate president, abolish intellectual property.
-
Not sure why the knee jerk hate on this one. I like the idea of opening up academic articles and other materials for free and open use.
It's the fact that it's not free and open use to us, just to the AI trainers. At least that's what the judges seem to be saying at this point.
-
So let's pretend we give them all the training data they want for free (which they already have taken illegally)
The buisness model is still non-viable because the energy costs far outweigh any subscriptions they can get. And the tech isn't even good enough for people to want to subscribe at the current prices.
I need to stop believing my own lying eyes.
-
Settle down, nerds. TACO just read from the card they gave him. He doesn't think anything about AI. Of course, he'll make the wrong decisions and cause utter chaos and strife but it's not like he has an actual opinion about AI.
What if president brainrot accidentally kills intellectual property, even glitched out cuckoo clocks are right occasionnally by chance!
-
Then maybe AI "programs" aren't a good product.
Next it will be, "we can't be expected to make a good murderbot without murdering some people"Proceeds to start wars with every ethnicity to ensure the murder bots are trained to kill all variants of the population. "Of course they have to kill little people, how else will we know that a little person couldn't judo chop them to death."
-
Not sure why the knee jerk hate on this one. I like the idea of opening up academic articles and other materials for free and open use.
mb misread the article
-
Not sure why the knee jerk hate on this one. I like the idea of opening up academic articles and other materials for free and open use.
Because it's just for training AI, it will never trickle down to you.
