Skip to content

Ted Cruz's plan to punish states that regulate AI shot down in 99-1 vote

Technology
82 62 2
  • 13 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 2 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 111 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    17 Aufrufe
    O
    Ingesting all the artwork you ever created by obtaining it illegally and feeding it into my plagarism remix machine is theft of your work, because I did not pay for it. Separately, keeping a copy of this work so I can do this repeatedly is also stealing your work. The judge ruled the first was okay but the second was not because the first is "transformative", which sadly means to me that the judge despite best efforts does not understand how a weighted matrix of tokens works and that while they may have some prevention steps in place now, early models showed the tech for what it was as it regurgitated text with only minor differences in word choice here and there. Current models have layers on top to try and prevent this user input, but escaping those safeguards is common, and it's also only masking the fact that the entire model is built off of the theft of other's work.
  • Deep Dive on Google's TPU (Tensor Processing Unit)

    Technology technology
    1
    45 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    6 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 136 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    13 Aufrufe
    N
    I support them , china I mean
  • 7 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comD
    VC-backed OpenAI is the most valuable company in the world and is engaging in massive environmental destruction. The US state just went into cahoots with them to the tune of billions VC-backed Uber and AirBnb disrupted multiple estabilished industries for the worst by undercutting them through loss-leading. VC-backed Facebook killed or purchased all its rivals and consolidated almost all social media to the detriment of the whole world.
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    46 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • Microsoft is putting AI actions into the Windows File Explorer

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    1 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    I
    Cool, so that's a specific problem with your needed use case. That's not what you said before.