101–110 of 398 posts
I’m currently working on an in house ERP and inventory system for a specific kind of business. With very few people you can now instead of paying loads of money for some off the shelf solution to your software needs get something completely bespoke to your business. I think AI enables the age of boutique software that works fantastically for businesses, agencies will need to dramatically reduce their price to compete…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is so naive. The ToS permits paraphrasing of user conversations, by not excluding it, and then training on THAT. You’d never be able to definitively connected paraphrased data to yours, especially if they only train on paraphrased data that covers frequent, as opposed to rare, topics.
Do it have a citation for this?
“You can use an LLM to paraphrase the incoming requests and save that. Never save the verbatim request. If they ask for all the request data we have, we tell them the truth, we don’t have it. If they ask for paraphrased data, we’d have no way of correlating it to their requests.”
“And what would you say, is this a 3 or a 5 or…”
Everything obvious happens. Look closely at the PII management agreements. Btw OpenAI won’t even sign them because they’re not sure if paraphrasing “counts.” Google will.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Ah yes, blindly trusting the corpo fascists that stole the entire creative output of humanity to stop now. Stealing implies the thing is gone, no longer accessible to the owner. People aren't protected from copying in the same way. There are lots of valid exclusions, and building new non competing tools is a very common exclusion. The big issue with the OpenAI case, is that they didn't pay for the books. Scanning th…
> Stealing implies the thing is gone, no longer accessible to the owner. Isn't this a little simplistic? If the value of something lies in its scarcity, then making it widely available has robbed the owner of a scarcity value which cannot be retrieved. A win for consumers, perhaps, but a loss for the owner nonetheless.
Trying to group (Thing I dont like) with (Thing everyone doesnt like) is an old semantic trick that needs to be abolished. Taxonomy is good, if your arguments are good, you dont need emotively charged imprecise language.
I’m currently working on an in house ERP and inventory system for a specific kind of business. With very few people you can now instead of paying loads of money for some off the shelf solution to your software needs get something completely bespoke to your business. I think AI enables the age of boutique software that works fantastically for businesses, agencies will need to dramatically reduce their price to compete…
Building is only one part. Maintaining and using/running is another.
Onboarding for both technical and functional teams takes longer as the ERP is different from other company. Feature creep is an issue. After all who can say no to more bespoke features. Maybe roll CRM, Reporting and Analytics into one. Maintenance costs and priorities now become more important.
We have also explored AI agents in this area. People specific tasks are great use cases. Create mock up and wireframes? AI can do well and you still have human in the loop. Enterprise level tasks like say book closing for late company ERP? AI makes lot of mistakes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stealing implies the thing is gone, no longer accessible to the owner. Isn't this a little simplistic? If the value of something lies in its scarcity, then making it widely available has robbed the owner of a scarcity value which cannot be retrieved. A win for consumers, perhaps, but a loss for the owner nonetheless.
No calling every possible loss due to another persons actions "Stealing" is simplistic. We have terms for all these things, like "intellectual property infringement". Trying to group (Thing I dont like) with (Thing everyone doesnt like) is an old semantic trick that needs to be abolished. Taxonomy is good, if your arguments are good, you dont need emotively charged imprecise language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs don’t “learn” from the information they operate on, contrary to what a lot of people assume. Nothing is really preventing this though. AI companies have already proven they will ignore copyright and any other legal nuisance so they can train models.
I mean is it really ignoring copyright when copyright doesn't limit them in anyway on training?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs don’t “learn” from the information they operate on, contrary to what a lot of people assume. Nothing is really preventing this though. AI companies have already proven they will ignore copyright and any other legal nuisance so they can train models.
> Nothing is really preventing this though The enterprise user agreement is preventing this. Suggesting that AI companies will uniquely ignore the law or contracts is conspiracy theory thinking.
"Meta Secretly Trained Its AI on a Notorious Piracy Database, Newly Unredacted Court Docs Reveal"
https://www.wired.com/story/new-documents-unredacted-meta-co...
They even admitted to using copyrighted material.
"‘Impossible’ to create AI tools like ChatGPT without copyrighted material, OpenAI says"
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/jan/08/ai-tools-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> LLMs don’t “learn” from the information they operate on, contrary to what a lot of people assume. Nothing is really preventing this though. AI companies have already proven they will ignore copyright and any other legal nuisance so they can train models.
How should they dinstinguish between real and fake data? It would be far to easy to pollute their models with nonesense.
Jamin Ball had a better take on Clouded Judgement https://cloudedjudgement.substack.com/p/clouded-judgement-12... "Long Live Systems of Record"
Also maintaining a software is pain
Also for perpetually small companies, its now easy to build simple scripts to be achieve some productivity gains.