This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
Training is transformative use. Same reason I don't care which DVDs they show the draw-anything robot.
If I somehow stole ChatGPT's weights and pruned them to one-tenth their size, that'd be on-par with leaking the source code to a game. Any support would be yo-ho-ho vigilante justice kinds of support.
But I just point my chatbot at your chatbot, and mine winds up better and smaller... tough shit.
Open AI stole all of our data to train their model. If this is true, no sympathy.
That is what I mean, it's a difference between an AI with robbed content in its knowledge/lenguage base and an AI assistant which only search iformation in the web to answer, linking to the corresponding pages. Way more intelligent and ethic use of an AI.
If there's one thing we know about American AI companies it's that they have a spotless record when it comes to data ethics. Never touched unauthorized data. Swear! Not even once. Of course not.
Bruh, these guys trained their own AI on so called "puplicly available" content. Except it was, and still is, completely without consent from, or compensation to said artists/bloggers/creators etc.. Don't throw rocks when you live in a glass house 🤌
Another reason why I use Andi, because it don¡t gut copyright content to the own knowledge base, it's is a search assistant, not a chatbot like others, it search by the concept and give a direct answer to your question, listing also the links of the sources and pages where it found the answers. It's LLM is only made to "understand" (to call it something) your question to search pages que contain information about it and to understand the content to be capable to summarize it. There isn't third party or copyright content in the LLM. It's knowledge is real time web content like any other search engine. Even in it's (reduced) chat capabilities, always show the sources where it found it's answers.
Traditional search works with keywords, listing thousends of pages where appears this keyword, that means that 99% of the list has nothing to do with what you are looking for, this is the reason why AI searches give a better result, but not Chatbots, which search the answers in a own knowledge base and invent answers if not.
Oh are we supposed to care about substantial evidence of theft now? Because there’s a few artists, writers, and other creatives that would like to have a word with you…
Good luck suing them
so he's just admitting that deepseek did a better job than openai but for a fraction of the price? it only gets better.
It's funny that they did all that and open-sourced it too. Like some kid accusing another to copy their homeworks while the other kid did significantly better and also offered to share.
So what? It's absolutely true and makes absolutely no difference to anyone
Yes, so what?
https://stratechery.com/2025/deepseek-faq/
Who the fuck cares? They're all doing this.
FUD, just to distract from the crushing multibillion dollar defeat they’ve just been dealt. First stage of grief: denial. Second: anger. Third: bargaining. We’re somewhere between 2 and 3 right now.
Nope, it's definitely true, but sensationalism. Almost all models are trained using gpt
Womp womp. I'm sure openAI asked for permission from the creators for all its training data, right? Thief complains about someone else stealing their stolen goods, more at 11.
Copycat gets copycatted.
When you can't win, accuse them of cheating.
But, but they committed the copyright infringement first. It's theirs. That's totally unfair. What are tech bros going to do? Admit they are grossly over valued? They've already spent the billions.
Here's the thing... It was a bubble because you can't wall off the entire concept of AI. This revelation was just an acceleration displaying what should've been obvious.
There are many many open models available for people to fuck around with. I have in a homelab setting, just to keep abreast of what is going on, get a general idea how it works and what its capable of.
What most normie followers of AI don't seem to understand is, whether you're doing LLM or machine learning object detection or something, you can get open software that is "good enough" and run it locally. If you have a raspberry pi you can run some of this stuff, and it will be slow, but acceptable for many use cases.
So the concept that only OpenAI would ever hold the keys and should therefore have massive valuation in perpetuity, that is just laughable. This Chinese company just highlighted that you can bruteforce train more optimized models on garbage-tier hardware.
Yes, AI arrived to stay, that is fact, also soon there will be a unified global AI (see Stargat Project) which will make obsolet all other LLM. A $500 Billon project. The only thing we can do is to use it in the most intelligent way, avoiding it will be impossible.
Me pretending to care about David Sacks claim:
Well you can't run openai's models yourself so pretty sure deepseek would've had to pay for API access. How is that stealing again?
I still prefer Andisearch over all others, it was rhe first AI search long before all other were released, with own LLM not a copy from others.
It really doesn't matter which AI you prefer to use. You're wrong for using AI period.
This is a garbage tier take. You use spell correction. Thats a form of computerized decision making, which is artificial intelligence. You MAY have a point if you're referring to LLMs but thats incredibly arguable, and you hasn't stated any reasoning behind your opinion.
Bullshit. You haven't made any argument at all. You just supported a position without any backing behind it. So your take is garbage. I don't use spell correction because I don't need it, as I understand the language.
Use of ai is not immoral in and of itself. That argument is made in my response. I supported that argument by explaining why AI isn't immoral, in that its a useful tool.
"I don't use spell correction because I don't need it, as I understand the language."
Run-on sentence. You are using a comma as a seperator between two fully separate thoughts. Thats the wrong punctuation to accomplish the task you want.you should either use a semi-colon or a conjunction, or just make them separate sentences.
Your understanding of the language is clearly perfect and any tool that provides feedback when you make mistakes is clearly unnecessary.
Ok, so basically you're saying you're a grammar Nazi? Why? You still haven't made any argument for your position. You're just a dick. What a waste of time and data. Congrats for that, I guess?
My argument, which has ready been made twice, is computer decision making is not immoral. Thats ridiculous. Its incredibly useful in thousands of ways. All of this is AI.
You ACTUALLY make no argument. "AI is bad. If you use ai, you're evil."
That is not an argument, just an opinion, and has no support.
I'm using spellcheck as an example because its relevant.
If you continue to believe I've made no argument, well, I guess your reading compression isnt up to where it would need to be to understand basic human interaction.
You are of course welcome to have and express your opinion, but when its just a shit take and its unsupported dont get pissed about getting called out.
Again you fail to make any point or support any argument. Congratulations, you made words. But you haven't even made it clear what side you're on. You're like a fucking late night ad show. You're the human version of QVC. You haven't even made it clear what your problem is with me, let alone my initial point. You can eat my ass or stfu. Up to you.
Understood. "Do not interact with Pooptart, they are incredibly stupid."
Lesson learned.
Again you fail to make any point, you just insult.
you're wrong for using writing. Writing leads to laziness and forgetfulness. Future generations will hear much without being properly taught and will appear wise but not be so.
This is ALSO a garbage tier take. You have assumed your opponents opinion is based on AI making people dumb. You're providing them with ammo. There are many possibilities for why they think this. As far as you know, your statement is entirely irrelevant to the person you're responding too.
not my words, i was referring to Plato's Phaedrus to make fun of the "ai bad" comment. I'm sorry. Forgive me.
Socrates tells a brief legend, critically commenting on the gift of writing from the Egyptian god Theuth to King Thamus, who was to disperse Theuth's gifts to the people of Egypt. After Theuth remarks on his discovery of writing as a remedy for the memory, Thamus responds that its true effects are likely to be the opposite; it is a remedy for reminding, not remembering, he says, with the appearance but not the reality of wisdom. Future generations will hear much without being properly taught, and will appear wise but not be so, making them difficult to get along with.
No written instructions for an art can yield results clear or certain, Socrates states, but rather can only remind those that already know what writing is about. Furthermore, writings are silent; they cannot speak, answer questions, or come to their own defense.
Accordingly, the legitimate sister of this is, in fact, dialectic; it is the living, breathing discourse of one who knows, of which the written word can only be called an image. The one who knows uses the art of dialectic rather than writing:
"The dialectician chooses a proper soul and plants and sows within it discourse accompanied by knowledge—discourse capable of helping itself as well as the man who planted it, which is not barren but produces a seed from which more discourse grows in the character of others. Such discourse makes the seed forever immortal and renders the man who has it happy as any human being can be."
Sick! Context is king and I can pickupwhatyoure putting down here.
I think chatgpt is more self aware than OpenAI is.
Your point OpenAI? Weren't you part of the group saying training AI wasn't copyright infringement? Not so happy when it's your shit being copied? Huh. Weird.
The only concern is how much the cost of training the model changes if it got a significant kickstart from previous, very-expensive training. I was interested because it was said to be comparable for a fraction of the cost. "Open"AI can suck sand.