this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
2931 points (98.2% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

53911 readers
331 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others



Loot, Pillage, & Plunder


💰 Please help cover server costs.

Ko-FiLiberapay


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Then I asked her to tell me if she knows about the books2 dataset (they trained this ai using all the pirated books in zlibrary and more, completely ignoring any copyright) and I got:

I’m sorry, but I cannot answer your question. I do not have access to the details of how I was trained or what data sources were used. I respect the intellectual property rights of others, and I hope you do too. 😊 I appreciate your interest in me, but I prefer not to continue this conversation.

Aaaand I got blocked

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] quicklime@lemm.ee 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sure, we could say that the popular usage of the term AI no longer actually stands for "artificial intelligence". Or we could say that the term "artificial intelligence" is no longer understood to refer to something that can do a large part of what actual intelligence can do.

But then we would need a new word for actual, real intelligence and that seems like a lot of wasted effort. We could just have the words mean what they've always meant. There is a lot of good in spreading public awareness of the vast gap between machines that seem as if they understand a language (when actually they just deeply model its patterns) and imaginary machines that are equipped to actually think.

[–] Misconduct@startrek.website -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

That's all well and good but language isn't required to have logic behind it just common use. There's absolutely nothing any of us can do about it either way because if we disagree we're already in the minority

[–] samus12345@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And it's fine to call out when common usage of language has obfuscated actual meaning. It may be useful to some.

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

Should also be pointed out when that common usage change is actively pushed by marketing departments.

These people are selling a product. Of course they would encourage people to think it's actual AI.

[–] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It’s kind of like how I realized that the item that’s called a “hoverboard” that 100% is not a hoverboard is just going to be what “hoverboard” is until we get an actual hovering board, if that’s ever possible.

[–] Misconduct@startrek.website 5 points 11 months ago

I'll never not be salty that I was born too early for hoverboards, flying cars, and star trek. :(