I prefer Threads.
You are a very brave person.
I prefer Threads.
You are a very brave person.
Defeatist opinion.
The commercial alternatives hope to make money with every additional user. They use AB testing and statistics to streamline the on-boarding and to increase engagement. The result may not be in the user’s interest (doom-scrolling, ragebait, …) but it works.
For a fediverse instance, any additional user is a cost, not the promise of money. Financially, you wouldn’t want that. Those who fund instances are giving a gift to the world for their own reasons. You can accept the gift or not. Those who keep instances running with donations will usually want to sustain the community of which they are part. They probably don’t want it to change very much.
So, I don’t think matters will change. Partly because the psychological engineering is antithetical to the fediverse ethos (as I see it, in my humble opinion). But mostly because the outcome we see is an inherent result of the incentive structure.
Yes, she said that. But what she said there just doesn’t make any sense.
I thought she made some very good points, but the quote in the title makes no sense to me.
It’s not clear if this is piracy. In the US, it’s obviously an ongoing fight. Basically, what you describe is “books3”, put together with scripts by Aaron Swartz.
It’s legal in Japan, if the purpose is only AI training and not enjoyment. I’m not sure if there are issues regarding DRM or such.
In the EU, the dataset and resulting model would be illegal. Any business offering the model would be in hot water, but I think internal use would be fine.
It probably says somewhere where you dled the model. It’s also in the metadata. I forget where it’s displayed. Maybe in the terminal window.
Things you should know:
L3 is probably not the right base for the task. Maybe Phi-3 or Cohere.
The article alleges, though without evidence, that the tracking is just an excuse to raise rates.
A quick search didn’t turn up quite the right statistics, but traffic fatalities have been seriously on the rise in the US. That probably implies higher payouts. (WP)
But also, when trackable unsafe drivers have to pay more (and trackable safe driver less), then the unsafe drivers will prefer to be untrackable. You may be on the receiving end of the recalculated actuary tables.
that will ultimately be used to create huge amounts of wealth for very few,
But… That is what these poisoning attacks are fighting for. They are attacking open image generators that can be used by anyone. You can use them for fun or for business, without having to pay rent to some owner who is not lifting a finger. What do you think will happen if you knock that out?
This attack doesn’t target Big Tech, at all. The model has to be open to pull off an attack like that.
This doesn’t have anything to do with tracking. This is supposed to sabotage free and open image generators (ie stable diffusion). It’s unlikely to do anything, though.
Hard to say what the makers want to achieve with this. Even if it did work, it would help artists just as much, as better DRM would help programmers. On its face, this is just about enforcing some ultra-capitalist ideology that wants information to be owned.
This sounds like some weirdly petty political wrangling that would delight any full-blooded bureaucrat.
The desire to make demands about training data is weird. Open source has never included a requirement to provide documentation of any kind. If there was some requirement for documentation, few would care and most just do their thing anyway. FOSS licenses facilitate sharing by giving people an easy way to make their code legally usable by others.
There’s nothing that quite matches source code + compiled binary. There are permissively licensed datasets and models. I’ll call either open source. Neither is equivalent to source code but either can be a source.
When routine bites hard and ambitions are low
And resentment rides high but emotions won’t grow
And we’re changing our ways, taking different roads
Then disinformation will tear us apart again
Why do you believe that?