this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
2946 points (98.2% liked)

Piracy: źœ±į“€ÉŖŹŸ į“›Źœį“‡ ŹœÉŖÉ¢Źœ źœ±į“‡į“€źœ±

55056 readers
210 users here now

āš“ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules ā€¢ Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

šŸ“œ c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


šŸ’° Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Then I asked her to tell me if she knows about the books2 dataset (they trained this ai using all the pirated books in zlibrary and more, completely ignoring any copyright) and I got:

Iā€™m sorry, but I cannot answer your question. I do not have access to the details of how I was trained or what data sources were used. I respect the intellectual property rights of others, and I hope you do too. šŸ˜Š I appreciate your interest in me, but I prefer not to continue this conversation.

Aaaand I got blocked

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[ā€“] Steeve@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right, and that statement itself is a massive oversimplification of the process. I feel like I've explained that in detail many times already.

[ā€“] underisk@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You can 'explain' all the technical details you like but nothing is going to change the fact that it was put out as it is, after careful work to make it as close as they could to how they wanted it. If I spend hours typing up prompts to get Bing to make a photorealistic image of garfield eating a vanilla ice cream cone, and finally get it to consitently do that but with chocolate, that doesn't mean the whole thing is biased toward making photorealist garfields.

[ā€“] Steeve@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Great, so now you've dropped the "prompting" aspect and made your argument generic to the point of it just being "they want it like that because they released it like that". Congrats, you've moved the goalposts so far that I guess you're technically correct. Good job?

[ā€“] underisk@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't drop the prompting. over half that comment is specifically an analogy about prompting. are you ok

[ā€“] Steeve@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Your analogy has absolutely nothing to do with how LLMs are trained. You seem to think GPT is just prompt engineering...