top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 195 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Just let anyone scrape it all for any reason. It’s science. Let it be free.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    The OP tweet seems to be leaning pretty hard on the "AI bad" sentiment. If LLMs make academic knowledge more accessible to people that's a good thing for the same reason what Aaron Swartz was doing was a good thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

    On the whole, maybe LLMs do make these subjects more accessible in a way that's a net-positive, but there are a lot of monied interests that make positive, transparent design choices unlikely. The companies that create and tweak these generalized models want to make a return in the long run. Consequently, they have deliberately made their products speak in authoritative, neutral tones to make them seem more correct, unbiased and trustworthy to people.

    The problem is that LLMs 'hallucinate' details as an unavoidable consequence of their design. People can tell untruths as well, but if a person lies or misspeaks about a scientific study, they can be called out on it. An LLM cannot be held accountable in the same way, as it's essentially a complex statistical prediction algorithm. Non-savvy users can easily be fed misinfo straight from the tap, and bad actors can easily generate correct-sounding misinformation to deliberately try and sway others.

    ChatGPT completely fabricating authors, titles, and even (fake) links to studies is a known problem. Far too often, unsuspecting users take its output at face value and believe it to be correct because it sounds correct. This is bad, and part of the issue is marketing these models as though they're intelligent. They're very good at generating plausible responses, but this should never be construed as them being good at generating correct ones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 89 points 2 years ago

    To paraphrase Nixon:

    "When you're a company, it's not illegal."

    To paraphrase Trump:

    "When you're a company, they just let you do it."

  • source
  • [+] 73 points 2 years ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 50 points 2 years ago
    [–] 46 points 2 years ago
    [–] 41 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Who writes the laws? There's your answer.

    I'm curious why https://www.falconfinance.ae/ cares about this though.

    The hell they are selling? https://www.falconfinance.ae/falcon-securities/

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago

    I did some digging. It's a parody finance website that makes it seem like you can invest in falcons and make a blockchain (flockchain) with them. Dig a little further, go to the linked forum, and you'll see it's just a community of people shitposting (mostly).

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 38 points 2 years ago (6 children)
    load more comments (6 replies)
    [–] 37 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    All is legal in the eyes of capital.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 33 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    and in due time, we'll hack OpenAI and get the sources from the chat module..

    I've seen a few glitches before that made ChatGPT just drop entire articles in varying languages.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    AI models don't actually contain the text they were trained on, except in very rare circumstances when they've been overfit on a particular text (this is considered an error in training and much work has been put into coming up with ways to prevent it. It usually happens when a great many identical copies of the same data appears in the training set). An AI model is far too small for it, there's no way that data can be compressed that much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago

    Remember what you learned in school: Working as a team to solve a test or problem is unacceptable!!! Unless you are a company town.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago

    Anything the rich and powerful do retroactively becomes okay

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (19 children)
  • load more comments (16 replies)
    [–] 19 points 2 years ago

    I'm still blaming the MIT for that !

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

    Can we be honest about this, please?

    Aaron Swartz went into a secure networking closet and left a computer there to covertly pull data from the server over many days without permission from anyone, which is absolutely not the same thing as scraping public data from the internet.

    He was a hero that didn't deserve what happened, but it's patently dishonest to ignore that he was effectively breaking and entering, plus installing a data harvesting device in the server room, which any organization in the world would rightfully identity as hostile behavior. Even your local library would call the cops if you tried to do that.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    Epstein his own life

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›