Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Big Tech's underground race to buy AI training data

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 152 posts

Re: Big Tech's underground race to buy AI training data

#31

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

neolefty wrote: post #22

This market is troubling. But I have a different question: What does the long game look like for raw training data? How will AIs maintain the quality of their diet? To compare, web search started — in the early days of Google — as a huge win because so much valuable information that was scattered around became findable. But over time it has become whac-a-mole with spam and AI copypasta, and now it's a struggle to kee…

Just like how ads have integrated into everything, trying to get us to click away from the happy path, AI will be in everything, trying to get us to do things that it is not yet good at so that it can learn from us. Which would be fine if the newfound efficiencies were properly democratized.

Re: Big Tech's underground race to buy AI training data

#32

Post by llm_trw »

sigmoid10 wrote: post #9
layer8 wrote: post #6

This will be a fun reminiscence once we find out how humans are able to learn with just a tiny fraction of that data volume.

The data volume is actually not that different once you account for all senses and how many years it takes for a human to become useful. The interesting thing would be how the human brain filters out the unimportant information as it develops.

That's a distinction without a difference. The majority of data is from a distribution that's already been sampled multiple times.

E.g. how often does a baby go out and experience something novel? The majority of it's time is spent getting the same stimulus over and over again, as anyone listening to childrens television can attest.

Humans learn in fundamentally different ways to our current systems and information poverty is not a problem for us.

Re: Big Tech's underground race to buy AI training data

#33

Post by 5040 »

Shrezzing wrote: post #18

>in talks with multiple tech companies to license Photobucket's 13 billion photos and videos >Photobucket declined to identify its prospective buyers, citing commercial confidentiality. >tech companies are also quietly paying for content locked behind paywalls and login screens, giving rise to a hidden trade in everything from chat logs to long forgotten personal photos from faded social media apps In this market, et…

>In former times it was maintained that ownership of landed property extends from heaven all the way down to the center of the Earth, but this doctrine is obsolete, as evidenced by the flight of airplanes.

Re: Big Tech's underground race to buy AI training data

#34

Post by add-sub-mul-div »

dnissley wrote: post #11
mostlysimilar wrote: post #8

Who could have guessed giving away all of our data to corporations wholly focused on profit would be a bad thing?

If the end result is ai chat agents that anyone in the world can access for free, that seems like an absolutely wonderful thing

We can be forgiven for not having foreseen how social media would be used against us, connecting the world sounded like a cool idea on the surface. But having gone through that there's no excuse to be naive and simplistic about AI.

Re: Big Tech's underground race to buy AI training data

#36

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

htrp wrote: post #2

>Rates vary by buyer and content type, but Braga said companies are generally willing to pay $1 to $2 per image, $2 to $4 per short-form video and $100 to $300 per hour of longer films. The market rate for text is $0.001 per word, she added. This is high enough that there should be a market to compensate the end users who created these

> The market rate for text is $0.001 per word, she added.

I'm astonished that a picture turns out to be worth a thousand words.

Re: Big Tech's underground race to buy AI training data

#39

Post by gogogo_allday »

nico wrote: post #24
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's gross violation of privacy; no such thing as anonymized recordings.

It would be a violation of privacy if people weren’t aware/hadn’t consented But if it was part of the terms of the new free service, and all the parties involved got a reminder message on the call… you might still not like it, but it doesn’t seem like it would be a violation of privacy

I’m not a lawyer, but I do live in a one party consent state. I would imagine if I setup a service here, ensured all calls originated in my state, and the person who owned the account being used consented, it would be legal. Even without informing the person on the other end of the call.

Would this violate other laws outside my jurisdiction? Probably, but that just means I won’t travel there.

I actually hope I’m wrong.

Post reply on HN