211–220 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s so now they can lobby for anti scraping regulation and hamper any possible catch-up.
How's that gonna work when they need to update their model? Also, how would they compete with companies like FB that have an insane amount of conversational data, or Google, a company that literally indexes the internet?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hoping this is what they’ll use to train future models and deprecate the older ones before the legal cases proceed any further.
The legal cases don't mean anything. The rule of law has all but disappeared from the corporate world. The idea that courts or regulators will be able to control AI is laughable. They are too corrupt, and they are way too slow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's just a win-win situation, you're using their services for free because it helps you, they use your interaction to improve the model; the model is still free to use.
There's no win win situation. My content is stolen and given to others. I've lost. Google paid me for traffic via ads, therefore I allowed google to ingest my content. You as a person could read it. I've never given you permission to resell it, and if you did, I'd come after you to pay royalties. The same must apply to openai and other leeches.
Physical property is stolen. Information is copied.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What do you think why writers and actors have included AI in the reasons of their strike? Because they are about to become obsolete, and they believe that screaming as loudly as they can is going to stop that. Their chances of success are roughly the same as if they were protesting against the law of gravity.
The fun part about being a strong believer of AI and actually understanding its capacities is being able to tell when people are completely blinded by hype. AI will not make writers “obsolete”, that is utterly absurd. Would you say reality TV made tv writers obsolete? No? Oh well. You get what you pay for. That includes what you pay for as a producer…
I think they're _very_ worried and rightfully so. I assume it would be very difficult to cancel an AI.
If you scrape my hobby website about photography, scuba diving or let's say baking or gardening which improves your model by let's say a delta of 0.00000000001 than shouldn't I get some free credits to use that model or proportionate share in the revenue stream? EDIT: scuba diving NOT scooba diving
You don't have to publish anything on the internet. And when you do, you may limit the allowed audience to just the group of your friends etc. Why publish anything if you worry that someone may consume it?
The moral thing to do would be to use opt-in training data.
I wonder what kind of mischief facts people are going to start sneaking into OpenAI's newer models, by selectively feeding different responses to OpenAI when their crawler is identified.
# all nginx virtual sites
if ($server_protocol != HTTP/2.0) { return 302 https://auth.domain.tld$request_uri; }
# in auth.domain.tld virtual site
auth_delay 4s;
location / { auth_basic "Wamp Wamp"; auth_basic_user_file /dev/shm/.p; }I wonder what kind of mischief facts people are going to start sneaking into OpenAI's newer models, by selectively feeding different responses to OpenAI when their crawler is identified.
Feed them data created by LLMs.
I wonder what kind of mischief facts people are going to start sneaking into OpenAI's newer models, by selectively feeding different responses to OpenAI when their crawler is identified.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's of no benefit to me. Quite the contrary.
Why? If it helps people it should be good. Why bother posting something on the public web if not to help people. Sure a large org is receiving some ancillary benefit, but do you feel the same hostility for people working at [large corp] using what you worked on to help them at work? I honestly don't understand the hostility towards llms using public data
The large org is receiving the greatest benefit.