this post was submitted on 05 May 2025
104 points (90.6% liked)

Technology

2621 readers
519 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost 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 communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone 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 attacksAny 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 tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 40 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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:

  • Always two weights, two measures. If you violate their IP, you're a filthy criminal; if they violate yours, you're overreacting and a luddite and harming progress. I want to see copyright gone, but if it is not, then apply it consistently to all sides. (By the way, fuck "Open"A"I" and their Bob Dylan defence.)
  • Always nagging you to use it. If you're nagging me to use something, it's because it's in yours best interests that I use it, not mine. No means "no" dammit.
  • Always implicitly lying about its abilities. No, I'm not going to ask it anything where a bullshit answer might ruin my day, stop misleading me to do so.
  • Always downplaying issues. Yeah, nah, I'm not blind to the environmental concerns around training those huge models. Or that corporations - that don't understand what "consent" means - basically DDoS sites to train their models.

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.

[–] Goretantath@lemm.ee 13 points 1 week ago

"Original Character plz do not steal" Sonic but purple with glasses

[–] Sendpicsofsandwiches@sh.itjust.works 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Took me a minute to understand everything that was going on with the open ai logo in the thumbnail...

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

[–] lime@feddit.nu 4 points 1 week ago

think of apple's on-device image scanner ai that flagged people as perverts after they had taken photos of sand dunes.

[–] knightly@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago

Microsoft Recall

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

building and centralizing pii is indeed a privacy point of failure. what's not to understand?

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The use of local AI does not imply doing that, especially not the centralizing part. Even if some software does collect and store info locally (not inherent to the technology and anything with autosave already qualifies here), that is not close to as bad privacywise as filtering everything through a remote server, especially if there is some guarantee they won't just randomly start exfiltrating it, like being open source.

[–] Umbrias@beehaw.org 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

emphasis mine from the text you quoted…

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (10 children)

I don't see how the possibility it's connected to some software system for profile building, is a reason to not care whether a language model is local only. The way things are worded here make it sound like this is just an intrinsic part of how LLMs work, but it just isn't. The model still just does text prediction, any "memory" features are bolted on.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That image is kind of off putting

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

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.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] vala@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago
[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 4 points 1 week ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›