Supply5411

I've left this place a few times as it's gotten progressively worse. Then I rejoin after some time off, and it's even more warped and hostile to new users.

The project that I'm known for, sh.py, was launched on HN 12 years ago, dig up the post if you're interested.

Yes, I know that. Where did I say differently? I said the threats are being normalized. If a world power is telling their citizens that it's happening, whether its actually happening or not, then that is the process of normalization.

MSM wants to pretend that nobody realizes their purpose is to push disinformation to everyone, all the time. So they clutch their pearls when "the other side" does it. Sorry, MSM, your credibility is in the toilet. You're all pushing disinformation, all the time. You get no points for calling the other side out on it.

What claim? I'm quoting the article and saying its ridiculous that racial bioweapon threats are becoming normalized.

>shouldn’t it be on the AI company to train using legally acquired content in the first place

I don't think so. It's not illegal to look at or learn from copyrighted materials. If you start producing the materials it becomes a different question. I think the same applies to AI.

The problem is inseparable from the system, because people are involved.

Makes sense, since you can use real money to buy reddit accounts with good reputation.

If a model generates large amounts of text that is very close to something you've written, because there isn't much else like it, how is that "inspired"? It needs more dilution.

DMCA 2024 - A nice big report button for when generated content is too close to copyrighted content. It is then on the AI company to supplement the training materials around that content, to dilute the generation of content that could be seen as infringing. So instead of George RR Martin prequels with the same names and characters (because of a lack of training materials), it generates something more generic for the input prompt.

Win/win?

There is much more freedom when they don't have to work to support a lie though. I'd rather a dishonest person or company have to put in a lot of work to defraud someone, than to have no scrutiny whatsoever.