You seem to have the assumption that they’re not. And that “helping society” is anything more than a happy accident that results from “making big profits”.

It’s not an assumption. There’s academic researchers at universities working on developing these kinds of models as we speak.

Are you asking me whether it’s a good idea to give up the concept of “Privacy” in return for an image classifier that detects how much film grain there is in a given image?

I’m not wasting time responding to straw men.

It’s a statistical model. Given a sequence of words, there’s a set of probabilities for what the next word will be.

That is a gross oversimplification. LLM’s operate on much more than just statistical probabilities. It’s true that they predict the next word based on probabilities learned from training datasets, but they also have layers of transformers to process the context provided from a prompt to eke out meaningful relationships between words and phrases.

For example: Imagine you give an LLM the prompt, “Dumbledore went to the store to get ice cream and passed his friend Sam along the way. At the store, he got chocolate ice cream.” Now, if you ask the model, “who got chocolate ice cream from the store?” it doesn’t just blindly rely on statistical likelihood. There’s no way you could argue that “Dumbledore” is a statistically likely word to follow the text “who got chocolate ice cream from the store?” Instead, it uses its understanding of the specific context to determine that “Dumbledore” is the one who got chocolate ice cream from the store.

So, it’s not just statistical probabilities; the models’ have an ability to comprehend context and generate meaningful responses based on that context.

If enforcement means big tech companies have to throw out models because they used personal information without knowledge or consent, boo fucking hoo

A) this article isn’t about a big tech company, it’s about an academic researcher. B) he had consent to use the data when he trained the model. The participants later revoked their consent to have their data used.

How is “don’t rely on content you have no right to use” litteraly impossible?

At the time they used the data, they had a right to use it. The participants later revoked their consent for their data to be used, after the model was already trained at an enormous cost.

ok i guess you don’t get to use private data in your models too bad so sad

You seem to have an assumption that all AI models are intended for the sole benefit of corporations. What about medical models that can predict disease more accurately and more quickly than human doctors? Something like that could be hugely beneficial for society as a whole. Do you think we should just not do it because someone doesn’t like that their data was used to train the model?

There’s nothing that says AI has to exist in a form created from harvesting massive user data in a way that can’t be reversed or retracted. It’s not technically impossible to do that at all, we just haven’t done it because it’s inconvenient and more work.

What if you want to create a model that predicts, say, diseases or medical conditions? You have to train that on medical data or you can’t train it at all. There’s simply no way that such a model could be created without using private data. Are you suggesting that we simply not build models like that? What if they can save lives and massively reduce medical costs? Should we scrap a massively expensive and successful medical AI model just because one person whose data was used in training wants their data removed?

You still use TP if you have a bidet though

The anecdote proves nothing because the model could potentially have known of the McGonagal character without ever being trained on the books, since that character appears in a lot of fan fiction. So their point is invalid and their anecdote proves nothing.

Yeah, I actually didn’t want to pull up the worst ones because I was on a work computer.

I’m not going to seriously engage with your bullshit historical revisionism any more than I would seriously engage with a holocaust denier.

Exactly, because there were no civilians maimed or killed ;) Heck, tanks literally CAN’T maim or kill people, that’s not what they’re made for. Militaries exclusively bring in tanks to help spread love and peace and good vibes.

Actually, if you’ve seen the pictures of the military armed with rifles marching around the city that day, did you know that those were just the kind with the flag that pops out and says ‘BANG!’? Haha they were just trying to give everybody a good laugh to ease the tension. And it WORKED and NO ONE GOT HURT!

Yes, haha, look how fake it is

As we all know, militaries NEVER use tanks to kill or injure people. They actually mostly use them to transport puppies and kittens, and the army’s very best huggers to spread love and joy :)

Did you cleverly infer that from the fact that I said, “no”? Or were their other subtle clues you picked up on?

The pictures of dead, maimed, mutilated civilian corpses and crushed bicycles/cars were actually staged by the protesters to frame the kind, peaceful Chinese military, who were only there to have friendly dialogue with the protestors.

No. how could I? Armored tanks are EXCLUSIVELY implements of peace, they are NEVER used lethally or to inflict harm. The Chinese military DEFINITELY brought in armored tanks for peaceful, humanitarian reasons.

No the tanks were there as part of a humanitarian mission /s

Those poor soldiers that were attacked in their tanks :( They were just visiting Beijing as tourists that day and had no orders to violently suppress any protests. Total misunderstanding.

Honestly, I think yes, it’s inevitable. The reason why is that keeping up with constantly changing technologies requires constantly learning how to do everything over again, and again, and again. It will get tiring eventually, and people will feel that learning the ins and outs of yet another social media app just isn’t worth it when they can already get by.

I say this as as software developer who sees a new tool or framework or language come out every year that’s bigger and better than the last, and I see the writing on the wall for myself. I’ll be outdated and just some old geezer who works on legacy tech stacks in 10-20 years, just like the guys working in COBOL or whatever now.

I’m still calling it Twitter because it will piss off Elon Musk if everyone keeps calling it Twitter and I think that’s funny.

I mean, they need to ramp it way faster. It’s pretty garbage right now and there’s really no excuse. Compare it to Lemmy and it’s very obvious. Lemmy still has problems, but it’s much easier to use and has way fewer bugs and glitches. If you’re used to Reddit, then switching to Lemmy is pretty easy to do, and I can see average users making that jump. But Mastadon isn’t even close to the user experience that Twitter/X offered, and I cannot see the average Twitter user sticking around and waiting for all the issue to be fixed.

It won’t last unless Mastadon gets some serious improvements. It’s buggy, glitchy, feature-poor, and confusing to use. There’s no way in its current state it’s going to compete with the big guys for the average person’s attention.