What’s even funnier is trying to explain the rules of American football to brits and they think that the QB gets fired when he is tackled with the ball.
Hopefully they managed to get in there before Trump and his cronies deleted a bunch of DMs that could be used as evidence. I don't trust Elon musk not to tell Trump that the FBI are seeking access.
I’ve seen in other articles that Twitter was forbidden from telling trump and they actually got fined because they were late trying providing the info because they wanted to notify trump.
Realistically, the universe is very unlikely to operate under the scenario that series depicts, because if an alien species existed with sufficient technology to wipe out other intelligent species from a distance, and desired to take out any other species they knew about like the whole dark forest idea implies, then they shouldnt need active proof of intelligence like an attempt at communication, it should be simpler to just look at planets for signs of planetary biospheres, in their atmospheres for example, and launch whatever planet-sterilizing weapons they planned to use at lifebearing planets before anything intelligent ever evolves. If they get powerful enough (which given the age of the universe they probably should be, it would seem fairly unlikely for all spacefairing aliens in a given area of space to have come about within even the same million years, even if sci-fi likes to portray it this way) then they dont even need to look for biosignatures, they could just preemptively attack every planet in the galaxy with relativistic projectiles. There are a lot of planets, sure, but a finite amount, and they’d have a lot of time to do this in. Hiding should be essentially impossible, because your location is almost certainly compromised before you even exist. Given that we exist, this implies that nobody in this general side of the galaxy behaves this way, either because there are no species in this region with the capacity to do this, or because they do not behave in such a hostile manner. Further, a species that does have the capacity to operate this way should at least consider that, if other intelligent species exist with any frequency, then it is very unlikely that they are the first intelligent species to exist, and therefore that as their territory or general area of contact and influence expands, they will inevitably encounter some civilization more powerful than theirs. When they do encounter that more advanced civilization, then having a history of destroying every intelligent species they find immediately is not going to give them a very good impression, and probably would get them seen as a threat, far more than they would if they were not overtly hostile to everything they encounter.
I’ve thought about this regarding code as well: An AI is nothing without a training data set, if someone uses licensed code to train an AI, they should definitely be bound by the license. For example: If an AI is trained using copyleft licensed code, the resulting model should also be regarded as copyleft bound. As of now, I suspect this is to a very large degree being ignored.
Sure, but that particular horse has left the barn. There will be cases where identification is easy(-ier) but as shown in Oracle v Google, there are only so many ways to express ideas in code.
For example, I just asked Claude 2 “Write a program in C to count from 1 to some arbitrary number specified on the command line.” Can you tell me the origin of this line from the result?
for(int i=1; i<=n; i++) {
I mean, if it’s from a copyrighted work, I certainly don’t want to use it in an open-source project!
EDIT: Guessing there’s a bug in HTML entity handling.
Of course, once the AI is trained, you can’t look at some arbitrary output and determine whether that specific output came due to some specific training data set. In principle, if some of your training data is found to violate copyrights you either have to compensate the copyright holder or re-train the model without that data set.
Finding out whether a copyrighted work is part of the training data is a matter of going through it, and should be the responsibility of the people training the model. I would like to see a case where it has been shown that a copyrighted dataset has been used to train a model, and those violating the copyright by doing so are held responsible.
I agree that under the current system of “idea ownership” someone needs to be held responsible, but in my opinion it’s ultimately a futile action. The moment that arbitrary individuals are allowed to download these models and use them independently (HuggingFace, et al), all control of whatever is in the model is lost. Shutting down Open AI or Anthropic doesn’t remove the models from people’s computers, and doesn’t eliminate the knowledge of how to train them.
I have a gut feeling this is going to change the face of copyright, and it’s going to be painful. We collectively weren’t ready.
It's not over and done with. Pass regulation saying every AI accessible w/in the country has to have a publicly available dataset. That way people can see if their works have been stolen or not. When we inevitably see works recreated wholesale without proper copyright, the AI creators can be sued or fined.
Couple of things here - what do you do with the open source models already published? There’s terabytes of data encapsulated in those. Some have published corpora, some don’t. How do you plan to determine that a work comes from an unregistered AI?
Also, with respect to “within the country” - VPNs exist. TOR exists. SD cards exist. What’s your plan to control the flow of trained models without violating civil rights?
If they don't publish what their training data is, they should be considered violating copyright. The world governments can block sites if they want. It's hard to swat down all of the random wikis and such but major AI competitors wouldn't be a big problem.
That way people can see if their works have been stolen or not.
Firstly, nothing at all is being "stolen." The words you're looking for are "copyright violation."
Secondly, it does not currently appear that training an AI model on published material is a copyright violation. You're going to have to point to some actual law indicating that. Currently that sort of thing is generally covered by fair use.
Sidebar says “News from around the world” not “News impacting the world”. If you don’t like it, down vote it and move on; or better yet, start a new community that you see fit. This is Lemmy after all, and anyone can create a community/an instance to shape the fediverse to their hearts’ content.
Not if you’re USian. But apparently ‘politics’ only exists for USians. Confusing, I know. Probably best not to worry about it. If you’re not interested, just scroll on by.
Unilever has been under pressure to pull out of Russia, but says the situation is “not straightforward”.
Yes, what makes it complicated is that Hein Schumacher, CEO of Unilever, would get a smaller bonus if he didn’t support an attempted genocide. Just to repeat that for SEO purposes, Hein Schumacher and the board of Unilever support a genocide in Ukraine.
bbc.co.uk
Top