41–50 of 562 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So built on stolen data essentially.
Does that imply I just stole your comment by reading it? No snark intended; I’m seriously asking. If the answer is “no” then where do you draw the line?
> We train our foundation models on licensed data, including data selected to enhance specific features, as well as publicly available data collected by our web-crawler, AppleBot. Web publishers have the option to opt out of the use of their web content for Apple Intelligence training with a data usage control. And, of course, nobody has known to opt-out by blocking AppleBot-Extended until after the announcement wher…
Apple just did more to make this a privacy focused feature versus just a data mine than literally anyone else to date and still people complain. Public content on the internet is public content on the internet - I thought we had all agreed years ago that if you didn’t want your content copied, don’t make it freely available and unlicensed on the internet.
What I don't like is the hypocrisy that basically every AI company has engaged in, where copying my shit is OK but copying theirs is not. The Internet is not public domain, as much as Eric Bauman and every AI research team would say otherwise. Even if you don't like copyright[0], you should care about copyleft, because denying valuable creative work to the proprietary world is how you get them to concede. If you can shove that work into an AI and get the benefits of that knowledge without the licensing requirement, then copyleft is useless as a tactic to get the proprietary world to bend the knee.
[0] And I don't.
My opinion is that individual copyright ownership is a bad deal for most artists and we need collective negotiation instead. Even the most copyright-respecting, 'ethical' AI boils down to Adobe dropping a EULA roofie in the Adobe Stock Contributor Agreement that lets them pay you pennies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And, of course, nobody has known to opt-out by blocking AppleBot-Extended until after the announcement where they've already pirated shittons of data This is wrong. AppleBot identifier hasn't changed: https://support.apple.com/en-us/119829 There is no AppleBot-Extended. And if you blocked it in the past it remains blocked.
From your own link: > Controlling data usage > In addition to following all robots.txt rules and directives, Apple has a secondary user agent, Applebot-Extended, that gives web publishers additional controls over how their website content can be used by Apple. > With Applebot-Extended, web publishers can choose to opt out of their website content being used to train Apple’s foundation models powering generative AI fe…
Applebot-Extended does not crawl webpages.
They gave this as an additional control to allow crawling for search but blocking for use in models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From your own link: > Controlling data usage > In addition to following all robots.txt rules and directives, Apple has a secondary user agent, Applebot-Extended, that gives web publishers additional controls over how their website content can be used by Apple. > With Applebot-Extended, web publishers can choose to opt out of their website content being used to train Apple’s foundation models powering generative AI fe…
Might want to actually read it: Applebot-Extended does not crawl webpages. They gave this as an additional control to allow crawling for search but blocking for use in models.
You said there is no Applebot-Extended. The link says otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that imply I just stole your comment by reading it? No snark intended; I’m seriously asking. If the answer is “no” then where do you draw the line?
Reading, no. Selling derivative works using, yes.
> We train our foundation models on licensed data, including data selected to enhance specific features, as well as publicly available data collected by our web-crawler, AppleBot. Web publishers have the option to opt out of the use of their web content for Apple Intelligence training with a data usage control. And, of course, nobody has known to opt-out by blocking AppleBot-Extended until after the announcement wher…
> just trained a new OS development AI on every OS Apple has ever written. …is there publicly visible source code for every OS Apple has ever written?
https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/distribution-macO...
https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/distribution-iOS
I'm not sure how it all fits together but people have even made an open source distribution of the base of darwin, the underlying OS:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And, of course, nobody has known to opt-out by blocking AppleBot-Extended until after the announcement where they've already pirated shittons of data This is wrong. AppleBot identifier hasn't changed: https://support.apple.com/en-us/119829 There is no AppleBot-Extended. And if you blocked it in the past it remains blocked.
From your own link: > Controlling data usage > In addition to following all robots.txt rules and directives, Apple has a secondary user agent, Applebot-Extended, that gives web publishers additional controls over how their website content can be used by Apple. > With Applebot-Extended, web publishers can choose to opt out of their website content being used to train Apple’s foundation models powering generative AI fe…
Not that I like an opt-out system, but based on the wording of the docs it is true that if you blocked Applebot then blocking Applebot-Extended isn't necessary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Likely they’ll be able to take advantage of the hardware neural engine and be far more power efficient. Apple has demonstrated this is something it takes pretty seriously.
So iOS LLM Apps dont use the neural engine? Lol
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So built on stolen data essentially.
Web scraping is legal. And if you run a website and want to opt-out then simply add a robots.txt. The standard way of preventing bots for 30 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does that imply I just stole your comment by reading it? No snark intended; I’m seriously asking. If the answer is “no” then where do you draw the line?
I don’t actually think this is complicated and reading a comment is not the same thing as scraping the internet and you obviously know that. A few factors that come to mind would be: - scale - informed consent which there was none in this case - how you are going to use that data. For example using everybody others work so the worlds richest company can make more money from it while giving back nothing in return is a…