- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
I find this wholly unsurprising.
All ai projects should be forced to show the entirety of their training data. I don’t give a flying fuck if they want to call it proprietary, they don’t own most of the data in the first place. Even if they bought it, it doesn’t belong to them, just like we don’t own digital movies we buy.
And if even a single piece of that training data doesn’t have proper licensing for that specific use for that specific model, or they are ever found to have withheld any of the data, the model as a whole should be immediately scrapped, along with everything even tangentially derived from it, and the company should be fined fully double whatever amount of money that model generated or one years revenue for the company as a whole, whichever is more (no I don’t care if this leads to bankruptcy, should have thought about that before you stole data), and like use if for affordable housing programs or public schools or something, whatever.
They can try again with clean data, also subject to review. One time. Second time they do the same shady shit, permanently banned from the entire sector.
But regardless, we need to stop rewarding them for this behavior. And we need the consequences to actually hurt or we can expect it to get worse, not better.
All ai projects should be forced to show the entirety of their training data.
Agreed—but note that in this case the information was only discovered because the organizations involved (Common Crawl and LAION) do show their data. We should assume that proprietary data sets have similar issues—but this case should be seen as an opportunity to improve one of the rare open data sets, not to penalize its openness and further entrench proprietary sources.
The problem with that plan is it requires actual punishment for a large corporation and that is bad for campaign funds.
Don’t stop there. All software should be required to be open source, especially anything that is used by the government or enough of the citizens that it impacts national security
“Current AI models cannot forget data they were trained on, even if the data was later removed from the training data set,” Han’s report said.
Bullshit. You delete the entire model and start again.
I now understand Israel motives
Grass is green, water is wet, the sky is blue, and privacy settings don’t do anything.
I just assume now that any content or data that I make available to a company will be exploited by them. So I don’t do it. It’s pretty sad to be honest. I want to keep things special and share with the people I know and love but I can’t do it without also sharing with others at the same time, who cheapen and abuse it. Intimacy, trust and shared experience as a core part of human life is being erased and I don’t think anyone is really even noticing it happen to them.
This is such a bad headline. There is no “the AI”. There are lots of different people doing unrelated things.
You’re right, it doesn’t at all capture how disturbing the reality is.
Ignored privacy settings; unknown third parties can train AI models on data scrapped from private images and video host on common social media platforms.
Make sure you make your voice known at the roundtable on AI patent and copyright. We should own our own bodies, voices, photos, etc. They are ours. https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/events/public-roundtable-ai-and-protections-for-use-of-individuals-name-image-or-likeness
Me can’t believe it.
So if I mark my phone as being owned by a kid, do I get extra legal protection?
I buy sunscreen made for babies for similar reasons.
Don’t bet the farm on it.
Hey parents, wanna let me hold your money for safe keeping? I sure you it’s safer with me.
Maybe instead, so ya wanna stop getting your fucking children involved with proprietary software and remote hosting ya fucking dunces!??!
I won that bet.
While I personally wouldn’t want AI inserting trains into photos of my kids without my consent, many kids like trains, and they could add some whimsy to an otherwise uninteresting picture.
I know you’re making a joke, but this doesn’t really feel like the place to do it given the subject being discussed.
Yeah, robots looking at photos of kids that their parents voluntarily posted on the internet is no laughing matter. Way more serious than, say, violent crime. And nobody makes jokes about that, do they?
I personally don’t appreciate jokes about violence either, but whatever. I’m not policing the Internet.
Aw, come on.
“Cartoonist found dead in home. Details are sketchy.”
“Where’s the best place to hide after committing murder? Behind a badge.”
“Did you know today is the anniversary of the Jonestown massacre? I’d tell you a joke about it, but the punch line is too long.”
We clearly do not share a sense of humor.
You remind me of God in this classic:
A holocaust survivor dies of old age and goes to heaven. When he gets there, he meets God and tells him a holocaust joke.
God says, “That’s not funny.”
And the man says, “I guess you had to be there.”
