Live data from Hacker News

Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

github.com

271–280 of 354 posts

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#271
post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>specifically that parent suggested people were only hunted for creating/uploading pirated content, not merely participating in the torrent. For all intents and purposes, participating in the torrent almost guarantees that you seeded, because all torrent clients upload as you download.

These are two separate things: * Making content available for unauthorized distribution * Distributing unauthorized content that someone else already made available Seeding isn't making content available, it's keeping content available.

That’s a really interesting distinction. Clearly there’s an “original crime”, the first person to rip the CD and put it online (or whatever kids do to pirate music nowadays).

But then if I download a file, create a copy, and share it with you, have I done anything wrong?

To all intents and purposes, seeding is an act of reproduction. You, while keeping your copy, create copies of (parts) of the file and share it to someone else to allow them to assemble a new, second copy.

Whether this is, or should be, a crime is a different question altogether. The main point I was making is that it’s the copying/sharing to other people which seems to be a crucial element in these prosecutions.

That’s likely intentional: the last thing the *AA folks want is a decision that creating a copy of a copyrighted work for your own personal use is not a crime. But it does seem the courts have decided: making a copy for someone else is indeed illegal.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, thats lawyer speak to make clients/victims believe there is no distinction. Hint: there is a distinction.

There is indeed, but not when you’re torrenting (i.e. you can’t download without also uploading).

Even when you are torrenting, there is a clear distinction of the different roles.

Copying from another comment I wrote here:

> These are two separate things:

> * Making content available for unauthorized distribution

> * Distributing unauthorized content that someone else already made available

> Seeding isn't making content available, it's keeping content available.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#273
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Chinese, it always added something like "For study/research purpose only. Please delete after 48 hours." This is what those volunteers added in subtitles of (pirated) movies/shows.

Fair, if AI companies are allowed to download pirated content for "learning", why ordinary people cannot.

Well, it just shows that they've downloaded subtitles.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#274
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in that case even though filming isn't technically distribution, it's clearly a step to distributing copies? To take this to the extreme, suppose you ripped a blu-ray, made a thousand copies, but haven't packaged or sold them yet. If the FBI busted in, you'd probably be prosecuted for "conspiracy to commit copyright infringement" at the very least.

It's just "training"

You seem to equate "training" (with scare quotes) with someone actually pirating a blu-ray, but they really aren't equivalent. Courts so far have ruled that training is fair use and it's not hard to see why. Unlike copying a movie almost verbatim (as with ripping a blu-ray), AI companies are actually producing something transformative in the form of AI models. You don't have to like AI models, or the AI companies' business models, but it strains credulity to pretend ripping a blu-ray is somehow equivalent to training an AI model.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#275
post #111
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fitting on noise in the training data is exactly what overfitting is. underfitting is smoothing out signal

Overfitting implies a failure to properly generalize the training data. Here it generalized them correctly. Garbage in, garbage out.

No. Because there would have been indtances in the data where silence was labelled correctly. But the model couldnt handle the null case, so it over fit on the outros. But generally it fit on the random error in the label of the null feature. Which is what overfitting is

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#276
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Synthesizing chemical substances doesn't involve murdering people though.

Families of fentanyl overdose victims would disagree. Moreover it's not hard to find examples of "legal if the government authorizes it" for killings. Cops and soldiers, for instance.

It is a bad comparison because substance vendor doesn't kill anyone just as a gun store doesn't. Soldiers are better analogy though.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#277
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When YouTube began building automatic transcriptions for captions, it regularly flagged any noise or music -- typically industrial noise -- with "[foreign]" If it couldn't understand it, it was "foreign" for the longest time.

Hey, Netflix occasionally still puts in its English subtitles "[foreign music]", it always cracks me up.

[speaks japanese]

To be fair, there is a difference between when subtitles match the source language and when they don't. Former are often verbatim.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#278
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But both are illegal? I suspect if it came out that some torrent seeder was actually part of some sort of piracy ring responsible for ripping the movies, they'd get far stiffer penalties than the few thousand $ fine that typical torrenters get. Moreover isn't AI companies also "keeping content available"?

Both are illegal, yes. That still doesn't make them the same thing. There are different shades of grey, etc. > Moreover isn't AI companies also "keeping content available"? I don't know what you mean by that.

>I don't know what you mean by that.

The whole point of the thread is that AI companies are getting away with piracy but individuals aren't. But the reality is that AI companies aren't getting away with it (a judge ruled that Anthropic must face trial over their use of pirated books).

More specific to this thread is that claim that "ONLY downloading" hasn't resulted in fines for anyone. So far as I can tell, this is true. People are just quibbling over how someone who's torrenting somehow counts as "only downloading", even though their client is uploading.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#279
post #24

The same happens with whisper-large-v3 on Chinese transcription: silence is transcribed to something like "please upvote, share and favourite this video". I suspect they trained the model on some random YouTube video without carefully picking really useful data.

This reminds me, some years ago as Google was expanding its translation service, someone tried translating text into and out of an obscure African language (don't recall which) and it always came out as weird Biblical-sounding semi-gibberish.

My revelation was that machine translation needs a corpus of bilingual documents to learn from, and if the language is sufficiently obscure, there may not be any bilingual documents except for the Bible, which missionaries have translated into just about every language on Earth.

Re: Complete silence is always hallucinated as "ترجمة نانسي قنقر" in Arabic

#280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much damning evidence that AI companies have committed absolutely shocking amounts of piracy, yet nothing is being done. It only highlights how the world really works. If you have money you get to do whatever the fuck you want. If you're just a normal person you get to spend years in jail or worse. Reminds me of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GptobqPsvg

No, if you revolutionize both the practice and philosophy of computing and advance mankind to the next stage of its own intellectual evolution, you get to do whatever the fuck you want. Seems fair.

Except that the jury’s (at best) still out on whether the influence of LLMs and similarly tech on knowledge workers is actually a net good, since it might stunt our ability to critically think and problem solve while confidently spewing hallucinations at random while model alignment is unregulated, haphazard, and (again at best) more of an art than a science.
Post reply on HN