Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
[email protected]
[email protected]
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @[email protected].
I don’t care if your language model is “local-only” and runs on the user’s device. If it can build a profile of the user (regardless of accuracy) through their smartphone usage, that can and will be used against people.
I don't know if I'm understanding this argument right, but the idea that integrating locally run AI is inherently privacy destroying in the same way as live service AI doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
think of apple's on-device image scanner ai that flagged people as perverts after they had taken photos of sand dunes.
Microsoft Recall
I'm not opposed to A"I"; far from that, I actually use text generators a fair bit, sometimes image gens. It's simply a technology and I use it as such. And I still bloody hate how corporations handle it:
But of course they won't talk about this, right? This sort of questionnaire is not made to genuinely obtain feedback; it's made to mislead you.
That image is kind of off putting
"Original Character plz do not steal" Sonic but purple with glasses
Took me a minute to understand everything that was going on with the open ai logo in the thumbnail...
Goatse vibes
Pro-AI people want to do away with copyright entirely. Seen a lot of stupid shit recently, but seeing so-called anarchists on db0 claiming that copyright only helps big business takes the cake.
Unfortunately there is a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation here. Put overly simply: If we start enforcing copyright in training AI models now, do you really believe that any companies who have already trained their models are really going to just toss them? I'm afraid that it's going to just be regulatory capture where the existing big names just pull the ladder up behind them while still making money off of their stolen content fueled plagiarism machines.
We'll ignore that OpenAI isn't actually profitable for the sake of the argument.
That said, abolishing copyright is quite possibly the stupidest solution I've ever heard for this issue.
No, I don't think they would. But I also do think that copyright has been bastardized from its original intent (mostly by Disney). Abolishing it entirely while not moving away from capitalism would be bad. Going back to it only lasting for the lifetime of the creator, and not being able to pass it down would be better.
Id argue that to some extent, its foundational to capitalism, such that any effort to actually abolish it would almost necessarily require destroying or significantly curtailing capitalism to succeed anyway. Virtually every company based on selling information, such as software and media companies that are some of the biggest on the planet right now, would find such an effort an existential threat, and even companies not based on such things may have patents or designs that give them an edge and that they would expend a lot on avoiding giving competition free range to copy. If you're able to overpower them on something so important to them, in so consequential a fashion, then their grip on economic and political power would have to already have been greatly reduced, and some other basis of such power to draw on for support would have to exist.
Movements to abolish or reduce the scope of copyright existed long before the current "AI" hype. Keywords around it are: free culture, the Pirate Bay, "copying is not theft", etc.
I've long been sympathetic to such and I don't think "AI" changes anything about that.
Wait, wouldn't it make sense for an anarchist to opposite intellectual property law on the grounds that the only way you could possibly enforce it beyond those in one's immediate community would be with a larger state and associated law enforcement apparatus, which an anarchist would be expected to be against the existence of?
I'm not sure that has much to do with AI, and if anything, AI companies should somewhat like copyright since what they are ultimately selling is a form of software, which is harder to profit off without such law. They just want the concept to apply selectively so as not to impede them.
In an actual anarchistic society, we wouldn't need copyright. But we live in capitalism. Stuff like copyright is needed until property itself no longer needs to exist. I'm all for changing the world toward anarchism, but I am not naive enough to believe for a second you can do it all at once without a major cataclysmic event and taking away the few things that at least attempt to make things fair within the current system is monumentally stupid.
Yeah
