Especially because seeing the same information in different contexts helps mapping the links between the different contexts and helps dispel incorrect assumptions.

Yes, but this is exactly the point of deduplication - you don't want identical inputs, you want variety. If you want the AI to understand the concept of cats you don't keep showing it the same picture of a cat over and over, all that tells it is that you want exactly that picture. You show it a whole bunch of different pictures whose only commonality is that there's a cat in it, and then the AI can figure out what "cat" means.

They need to fundamentally change big parts of how learning happens and how the algorithm learns to fix this conflict.

Why do you think this?

There actually isn't a downside to de-duplicating data sets, overfitting is simply a flaw. Generative models aren't supposed to "memorize" stuff - if you really want a copy of an existing picture there are far easier and more reliable ways to accomplish that than giant GPU server farms. These models don't derive any benefit from drilling on the same subset of data over and over. It makes them less creative.

I want to normalize the notion that copyright isn't an all-powerful fundamental law of physics like so many people seem to assume these days, and if I can get big companies like Meta to throw their resources behind me in that argument then all the better.

Remember when piracy communities thought that the media companies were wrong to sue switch manufacturers because of that?

It baffles me that there's such an anti-AI sentiment going around that it would cause even folks here to go "you know, maybe those litigious copyright cartels had the right idea after all."

We should be cheering that we've got Meta on the side of fair use for once.

look up sample recover attacks.

Look up "overfitting." It's a flaw in generative AI training that modern AI trainers have done a great deal to resolve, and even in the cases of overfitting it's not all of the training data that gets "memorized." Only the stuff that got hammered into the AI thousands of times in error.

You communicate with co-workers using natural languages but that doesn't make co-workers useless. You just have to account for the strengths and weaknesses of that mechanism in your workflow.

Sure, in those situations. I find that it doesn't take that much effort to write a prompt that gets me something useful in most situations, though. You just need to make some effort. A lot of people don't put in any effort, get a bad result, and conclude "this tech is useless."

It also isn't telepathic, so the only thing it has to go on when determining "what you want" is what you tell it you want.

I often see people gripe about how ChatGPT's essay writing style is mediocre and always sounds the same, for example. But that's what you get when you just tell ChatGPT "write me an essay about X." It doesn't know what kind of essay you want unless you tell it. You have to give it context and direction to get good results.

"Just give me this and I'll do the rest" is actually a pretty great workflow, in my experience. AI isn't at the point where you can just set it loose to work on its own but as a collaborator it saves me a huge amount of hassle and time.

You get out ahead of the locomotive knowing that most of the directions you go aren't going to pan out. The point is that the guy who happens to pick correctly will win big by getting out there first. Nothing wrong with making the attempt and getting it wrong, as long as you factored that risk in (as McDonalds' seems to have done given that this hasn't harmed them).

And under copyleft licensing, they're allowed to do that. Both to GitHub repositories and Wikipedia.

Why would that matter? You can fork such projects too.

Of course it is! We are simultaneously facing a labor shortage and mass unemployment. The important thing is to keep being angry and frightened, the specific subject you're angry about at any given time is flexible.

I once got permabanned from a politics subreddit (I think it was /r/canadapolitics) that had a "downvoting is not permitted" rule, because there was a guy getting downvotes and I offered him an explanation for why I thought he was getting them. That counted as evidence that I had downvoted him, I guess.

My response: I sent one message to the mods that was essentially "really?" And then when there was no response I unsubbed from that subreddit and moved on. I see no point in participating in subreddits with ridiculous rules and ridiculous enforcement.

Granted, unsubbing from politics subreddits is generally a good idea even when not banned. But eh.

The only other subreddit I'm banned in is /r/artisthate, which I never visited in the first place. Apparently they scan other subreddits for signs of users who don't hate artificial intelligence enough and preemptively ban them. That was kind of hilarious.

Anyway, I guess my advice is don't get too deeply "invested" in a community that can be so easily and arbitrarily taken away from you in the first place. And also manage your passwords better.