1204
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Iunnrais@lemm.ee 178 points 6 days ago

Just let anyone scrape it all for any reason. It’s science. Let it be free.

[-] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 6 days ago

The OP tweet seems to be leaning pretty hard on the "AI bad" sentiment. If LLMs make academic knowledge more accessible to people that's a good thing for the same reason what Aaron Swartz was doing was a good thing.

[-] Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

On the whole, maybe LLMs do make these subjects more accessible in a way that's a net-positive, but there are a lot of monied interests that make positive, transparent design choices unlikely. The companies that create and tweak these generalized models want to make a return in the long run. Consequently, they have deliberately made their products speak in authoritative, neutral tones to make them seem more correct, unbiased and trustworthy to people.

The problem is that LLMs 'hallucinate' details as an unavoidable consequence of their design. People can tell untruths as well, but if a person lies or misspeaks about a scientific study, they can be called out on it. An LLM cannot be held accountable in the same way, as it's essentially a complex statistical prediction algorithm. Non-savvy users can easily be fed misinfo straight from the tap, and bad actors can easily generate correct-sounding misinformation to deliberately try and sway others.

ChatGPT completely fabricating authors, titles, and even (fake) links to studies is a known problem. Far too often, unsuspecting users take its output at face value and believe it to be correct because it sounds correct. This is bad, and part of the issue is marketing these models as though they're intelligent. They're very good at generating plausible responses, but this should never be construed as them being good at generating correct ones.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

That would be good if they did that but that is not the intent of the org, the purpose of the tool, the expected or even available outcome.

It's important to remember this data is not being scraped to make it available or presentable but to make a machine that echos human authography convincingly more convincingly.

On an extremely simplified level, it doesn't want to answer 1+1=? with "2", it wants to appear like a human confidently answering an arithmetic question, even if the exchange is "1+1=?" "yes, 2+3 does equal 9"

Obviously it can handle simple sums, this is an illustrative example

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] umbrella@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 days ago

i agree, my problem is that it wont

[-] Auli@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago

Except it won’t. And AI we’ll be pay to play

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 84 points 6 days ago

To paraphrase Nixon:

"When you're a company, it's not illegal."

To paraphrase Trump:

"When you're a company, they just let you do it."

[-] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 66 points 6 days ago

Yes.. but it was MIT that pushed the feds to prosecute.

Never forge to name the proper perp.

Disgusting. And we subsidize their existence 🤡

[-] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 22 points 6 days ago

MIT releases financials and endowment figures for 2024:

The Institute’s pooled investments returned 8.9 percent last year; endowment stands at $24.6 billion

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 19 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Ortiz

Ortiz said "Stealing is stealing whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away."

So that was some bullshit, huh ?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] rasakaf679@lemmy.ml 45 points 6 days ago
[-] Facebones@reddthat.com 36 points 5 days ago

All is legal in the eyes of capital.

[-] wickedrando@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago
[-] Facebones@reddthat.com 0 points 1 day ago

By peons*

Totally fine when they do it.

[-] DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 5 days ago

The real golden rule

[-] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 49 points 6 days ago
[-] PanArab@lemm.ee 41 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Who writes the laws? There's your answer.

I'm curious why https://www.falconfinance.ae/ cares about this though.

The hell they are selling? https://www.falconfinance.ae/falcon-securities/

[-] TheOakTree@lemm.ee 25 points 5 days ago

I did some digging. It's a parody finance website that makes it seem like you can invest in falcons and make a blockchain (flockchain) with them. Dig a little further, go to the linked forum, and you'll see it's just a community of people shitposting (mostly).

[-] electricprism@lemmy.ml 24 points 5 days ago

Remember what you learned in school: Working as a team to solve a test or problem is unacceptable!!! Unless you are a company town.

[-] What_Religion_R_They@hexbear.net 38 points 6 days ago

double standards are capitalism's lifeblood

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] EmbarrassedDrum@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 6 days ago

and in due time, we'll hack OpenAI and get the sources from the chat module..

I've seen a few glitches before that made ChatGPT just drop entire articles in varying languages.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 24 points 6 days ago

AI models don't actually contain the text they were trained on, except in very rare circumstances when they've been overfit on a particular text (this is considered an error in training and much work has been put into coming up with ways to prevent it. It usually happens when a great many identical copies of the same data appears in the training set). An AI model is far too small for it, there's no way that data can be compressed that much.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] crmsnbleyd@sopuli.xyz 25 points 6 days ago

Anything the rich and powerful do retroactively becomes okay

[-] xiao@sh.itjust.works 18 points 6 days ago

I'm still blaming the MIT for that !

[-] umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 20 points 6 days ago
[-] Albbi@lemmy.ca 31 points 6 days ago
[-] CHKMRK@programming.dev 13 points 6 days ago

Never really was

[-] dan@upvote.au 11 points 6 days ago

A recent report estimates that they won't be profitable until 2029: https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-profit-funding-ai-microsoft-chatgpt-revenue-2024-10

A lot can happen between now and then that would cause their expenses to grow even more, for example if they need to start licensing the content they use for training.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ProgrammingSocks@pawb.social 8 points 6 days ago

No and AI almost never will be. However, investor money keeps coming, so it doesn't matter.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2024
1204 points (99.3% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54390 readers
103 users here now

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

Rules • 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

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-Fi Liberapay
Ko-fi Liberapay

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS