"AI model unlearning" is the equivalent of saying "removing a specific feature from a compiled binary executable". So, yeah, basically not feasible.
But the solution is painfully easy: you remove the data from your training set (ie, the source code), and re-train your model (recompile the executable).
Yes, it may cost you a lot of time and money to accomplish this, but such are the consequences of breaking the law. Maybe be extra careful about obeying laws going forward, eh?
Do not speak the deep magic to me, witch; I do not understand it.
Be me whose server is on Ubuntu 18.04 and needs upgrading to get Bluetooth into home assistant 😭
Too many negative words for chatgpt, imo. "isn't", "not", etc, chatgpt is usually positive and friendly to a fault.
Maybe you could provide a prompt that would output something substantially similar to what they wrote?
I don't know about "be successful", depending on how you measure success. All of these examples have been subsidized by cheap money for years, undercutting competition - and taking year after year of losses while they do it - for the purpose of capturing the market and driving out competitors, so that they can subsequently enact monopolistic behaviors to start actually turning a profit once customers have no other choice.
The problem is money suddenly got expensive, so now they're scrambling to find a way, any way, to turn a profit, before full market capture was achieved.
Can services like this be reasonably priced and user-friendly? Sure. Can they "succeed" / become sustainable while remaining so? Current examples indicate that's where the problem lies.
Total budget is quite high comparative to those numbers.
A SaaS startup I used to work for tried to implement on-call rotations for their salaried engineers. No additional compensation was offered for the time you were on-call, and if you did get called, the policy was going to be essentially "take the next day off" - when we already had unlimited PTO. I was not happy, and made it known at the time. My manager mentioned that, being in a senior role, I might have the opportunity to excuse myself from the rotations. Ew.
The effort didn't end up going anywhere, but that's been my sole experience so far with on-call efforts in software engineering.
I will forever wonder how these companies actively choose $0/mo over a cut of $XX/mo and everyone in the decision chain thinks it's the right decision.
It really only applies if success of the company is your primary concern.
I always thought it was supposed to reference market sentiment.
If your company is focused on X, but is also doing Y, and the market is really taking up with Y, you need to focus on keeping Y alive and well. Makes for a successful company to respect the market's wishes, and allows you to pursue X while Y is subsidizing it.
If you insist that X is the future, and put Y on the back burner to focus on X, well, the market will find a competitor who is doing Y better than you, and the market will abandon you.
Rather more realistically, they just have to reinterpret the constitution, a much lower bar.
So we just let them break the law without penalty because it's hard and costly to redo the work that already broke the law? Nah, they can put time and money towards safeguards to prevent themselves from breaking the law if they want to try to make money off of this stuff.