FaceDeer

Especially since whoever’s VP in Biden’s next term would have a big leg up on running for president in 2028.

I suspect it’s probably too late for the Democrats to switch horses now, but I hope that this finally pile-drives some smidgen of a lesson into them that they need to actually try to win elections rather than just assume that since they’re not crazy or evil like the Republican candidates people will naturally prefer them. They need to pick candidates that the people like and put in the effort to run those candidates well.

There’s still five months until the election, there’s plenty that Biden can do between now and then to show people that he’s a good choice. And then maybe this time once it’s all over the Democratic Party can do a major rethink of what exactly they’re doing with all this. Like they should have the last time they ran a candidate against Trump that they thought simply “deserved” to win.

Would be nice if SCOTUS had defined what “official acts” actually were.

His wrist would break, but it might be worth it.

If one needs to modify corporate behaviour I did mention regulations as one way to do it.

It’s not meant to be a good thought or a bad one, just a description of how things work. If you want the customers of this company to change their mind then you’ll need to direct your own arguments and/or “propaganda” (as it will likely be perceived by some) at those customers and outdo what they’re being fed by opposing groups.

Did take companies long to stop pretending like they care.

Of course they care, they care about what their customers think because that’s where their money comes from. This is just how corporations work, and it would have the opposite outcome if their customer base wanted those goals of theirs.

If you want corporations to change then convince them that they’ll make more money that way, by whatever means. Through customer preferences, regulations, etc. Don’t expect a corporation to “do what’s right because it’s right,” any more than you should expect a shark to “do what’s right.” It’s not designed that way.

There actually isn’t a downside to de-duplicating data sets, overfitting is simply a flaw. Generative models aren’t supposed to “memorize” stuff - if you really want a copy of an existing picture there are far easier and more reliable ways to accomplish that than giant GPU server farms. These models don’t derive any benefit from drilling on the same subset of data over and over. It makes them less creative.

I want to normalize the notion that copyright isn’t an all-powerful fundamental law of physics like so many people seem to assume these days, and if I can get big companies like Meta to throw their resources behind me in that argument then all the better.

Remember when piracy communities thought that the media companies were wrong to sue switch manufacturers because of that?

It baffles me that there’s such an anti-AI sentiment going around that it would cause even folks here to go “you know, maybe those litigious copyright cartels had the right idea after all.”

We should be cheering that we’ve got Meta on the side of fair use for once.

look up sample recover attacks.

Look up “overfitting.” It’s a flaw in generative AI training that modern AI trainers have done a great deal to resolve, and even in the cases of overfitting it’s not all of the training data that gets “memorized.” Only the stuff that got hammered into the AI thousands of times in error.

You get out ahead of the locomotive knowing that most of the directions you go aren’t going to pan out. The point is that the guy who happens to pick correctly will win big by getting out there first. Nothing wrong with making the attempt and getting it wrong, as long as you factored that risk in (as McDonalds’ seems to have done given that this hasn’t harmed them).

Training an AI does not involve copying anything so why would you think that fair use is even a factor here? It’s outside of copyright altogether. You can’t copyright concepts.

Downloading pirated books to your computer does involve copyright violation, sure, but it’s a violation by the uploader. And look at what community we’re in, are we going to get all high and mighty about that?

Training an AI on something doesn’t involve copying it.

And under copyleft licensing, they’re allowed to do that. Both to GitHub repositories and Wikipedia.

Why would that matter? You can fork such projects too.

If you want to argue that Lemmy doesn’t represent users at large, or that the people complaining about AI are a loud minority, go for it.

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing. Though specifically this community, not Lemmy as a whole (I’m not a Lemmy user myself for that matter).

Of course it is! We are simultaneously facing a labor shortage and mass unemployment. The important thing is to keep being angry and frightened, the specific subject you’re angry about at any given time is flexible.

You made an assertion about what end users want. I’m an end user and my desires are not the same as your desires.

But if the sentiment is that common, maybe there’s something to it.

Or maybe it’s just a common fallacy. Like argumentum ad populum.

FTX was a cryptocurrency exchange, how is that remotely similar to NVIDIA?

Can you remind me how those technologies are related, other than the mere accusation of them being “buzzwords”?

Cryptocurrency is actually doing fine, BTW. Just because you don’t find it useful doesn’t mean it’s not useful to other people.

I am an end user and I find it quite handy for a number of applications.

The reasoning “I don’t find it useful and therefore nobody finds it useful” is common in these sorts of threads.