Targeting an open source project. So brave, what a statement. /s
This has 0 effect on all the big AI companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, etc. All this does is make it harder for FOSS projects and leaves the corporations to dominate.
They are wrong. Theft means depriving someone of having something, and that’s not the case here. It’s more a “they’re taking our jobs” kind of situation.
You forget all the images that "AI" models are trained on without consent or payment. Plus as you say, that training could result in the same artists losing work. Double theft, of IP and future income.
Important difference between you and an ML model: you can enjoy that art (YMMV), the ML never will.
There is a similar distinction between artists and galleries putting artwork to the public, and corporations auto-scraping billions of artwork for a statistical engine to mass produce qualitatively lesser versions.
Paywalled. Here's the article via the Universal Summarizer by Kagi.
Google has experienced thousands of privacy incidents and security issues over a 6-year period from 2013 to 2018, according to an internal database obtained by 404 Media.
The privacy incidents range from small issues like a single errant email containing personal information to substantial data leaks and impending raids on Google offices.
The incidents involve Google's own products, data collection practices, vulnerabilities in third-party vendors, and mistakes made by Google staff, contractors, or others impacting Google systems.
The incidents include Google accidentally collecting children's voice data, leaking the trips and home addresses of carpool users, and making YouTube recommendations based on users' deleted watch history.
While individually the incidents may have only impacted a relatively small number of people, or were fixed quickly, collectively they show how a powerful company like Google manages and often mismanages a large amount of sensitive personal data.
Google employees internally report these privacy and security issues, assigning them priority ratings from P0 (highest) to P1.
The database obtained by 404 Media contains thousands of reports of these incidents over the 6-year period.
The revelations highlight the challenges major tech companies face in protecting user privacy and data, even with internal reporting systems.
The incidents suggest Google may not always be fully transparent about privacy and security issues impacting its users.
The article suggests the need for greater scrutiny and accountability around how large tech companies like Google handle sensitive user data.
That's what happens when people who don't understand LLMs try to profit off of LMMs. You can be sure that the actual programmers at Google told corporate that this would be the exact thing that would happen, but corporate pushed ahead anyway. The programmers shrugged, did their job, and brushed up their CVs just in case.
They also highlight the fact that Google’s AI is not a magical fountain of new knowledge, it is reassembled content from things humans posted in the past indiscriminately scraped from the internet and (sometimes) remixed to look like something plausibly new and “intelligent.”
This. "AI" isn't coming up with new information on its own. The current state of "AI" is a drooling moron, plagiarizing any random scrap of information it sees in a desperate attempt to seem smart. The people promoting AI are scammers.
I remember I once got told, years ago that I was stupid for saying "Data is the new Oil" and now look! Do you know what I could do if I had $60Million in my bank right now? And Google isn't the only one! Companies the world over are paying out the nose for user-generated content and business is booming! If I'm an oil well, it's time my oil came with a price tag. I was a Reddit user for YEARS! Almost since the beginning of Reddit! I made some of the training data that Google and others are using! Where's my cut of that $60M?
I've used an LLM that provides references for most things it says, and it really ruined a lot of the magic when I saw the answer was basically copied verbatim from those sources with a little rewording to mash it together. I can't imagine trusting an LLM that doesn't do this now.
I'd hate to defend an llm, but Kagi FastGPT explicitly works by rewording search sources through an llm. It's not actually a stand alone llm, that's why it's able to cite it's sources.
404media.co
Hot