141–150 of 235 posts
To be honest, these companies already stole terabytes of data and don't even disclose their dataset, so you have to assume they'll steal and train at anything you throw at them
"Reading stuff freely posted on the internet" constitutes stealing now? Seems like an excessively draconian interpretation of property rights.
Am I the only one that assumed everything was already being used for training?
I don't understand this mindset. Why would you assume anything? It took me a couple minutes at most to check when I first started using Claude. I check when I start using any new service. The cynical assumption that everything's being shared leads to shrugging it off and making no attempt to look for settings. It only takes a moment to go into settings -> privacy and look.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a myriad of reasons i may not want my data to be used. Maybe I am working on proprietary systems, maybe I am using Claude as a psychotherapist, maybe I use it as a tax advisor, the list goes on. Is it unrealistic to think that data may be extrapolated and connected to me in the future?
Use gpt4all or one of the other locally-hosted AI chatbots. Download a model and see if it works for you. It won't be as good as the latest models out there presumably, but at least you're not sending any chat data anywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We didn't seem to mind when Google was doing it back in 1999, or Lycos, Altavista, etc before them... why do we care about the LLM companies doing it now?
I find LLMs extremely useful but I think the difference is that they regurgitate the content (not verbatim) instead of a link to it. This is not unlike how a human might tell their friend about it.
"Training" is now a euphemism for stealing. Guess I can't write any production level code w/ this...
Some people would say that since the owner isn't being deprived of anything, it's not stealing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Reading stuff freely posted on the internet" is also very different from a business having machines consume large volumes of data posted on the Internet for the purpose of generating value for them without compensating the creators. I'm not making a value judgement one way or the other, but "reading stuff freely posted on the Internet" is an oversimplification.
Okay, but "stealing" is also an oversimplification, to the point of absurdity. It makes no sense to put stuff up on the internet where it can freely be downloaded by anyone at any time, by people who are then free to do whatever they like with it on their own hardware, then complain that people have downloaded that stuff and done what they liked with it on their own hardware. "Having machines consume large volumes of…
> where it can freely be downloaded by anyone at any time, by people who are then free to do whatever they like with it on their own hardware
I'd like to remind you that a lot of celebrities face legal issues for posting photos of themselves. Here's a recent example with Jennifer Lopez[0]. The reason these types of lawsuits are successful is because it is theft of labor. If you hire a professional photographer to take photos of your wedding then the contract is that the photographer is handing over ownership of the photos in exchange of payment. The only difference here is that the photo was taken before a contract was made. The celebrity owns the right to their body and image, but not to the photograph.
Or think about Open Source Software. Just because it is posted on GitHub does not mean you are legally allowed to use it indiscriminately. GitHub has licenses and not all of them are unrestricted. In fact, a repo without a license does not mean unfettered usage. The default is that the repo owner has the copyright[1].
> You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.
But basically, just because a piece of art exists on public property does not mean you have the right to do whatever you want with it.
> is equally a description of Google.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2qqew643go
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/repositories/managing-your-reposi...
I can understand training AIs on books, and even internet forums, but I can't help but think that training an AI on lots of dumb questions with probably an excessive amount of grammar and spelling errors will somehow make it smarter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they're now opt-out rather than opt-in to your data being used for training This is what the comment I was replying to said. I took that to mean "you have to opt out (ie you're opted in by default)".
The meaning of the term "opt-in" is that it is off by default and has to be manually enabled. "opt-out" means it is on by default and you have to manually turn it off. "opt-in-by-default" or "opted in by default" are needlessly confusing.
You can also have a checkbox that says "I consent to having my data used for training", which would look like "opting in", and it could be true by default.
Or you can have a checkbox that says "Leave my data out of your training set", which would look like "opting out", and which could be unchecked default.
Technically, they're both "opt-out", but I've seen enough examples (intentionally confusing and arguably "dark patterns") that I personally don't really consider "it's opt-in" to be a complete statement anymore.
Edit: I'll add that, in the comment I was replying to, it very much looked like you had to go to a settings page in order to opt-out, which I think is entirely reasonably described as having been opted-in by default. Here's what they had written:
> All you have to do is flip a single switch in the options to turn it off
And I actually think "opted-in by default" is valid and calls out cases where it looks like you consent, but that decision was made for you. Although in this case I think I've seen other comments that describe the UX differently, but my comment was more of a general comment than about this particular flow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what are you doing with the data? What is your legacy going to be other than the data that you leave to be mined? Do you just not want something else to benefit from something that has no benefit to you? If so, why?
Oh and i forgot the most important thing, I am paying good money for this service, now they also mine my data? I grew up in a time where "if it's free, you're the product". I guess that's not even the case anymore, if you pay, you're still the product...