admin

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago

I think you'll get to hold on to that feeling.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

Good find, that explains.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

That the person who reported it used a ML to try and find the setting to attempt to solve it, did not fill me with confidence of their abilities to manage this. They later admitted that they did have it enabled in some form.

They also never became specific about how well Gemini interpreted their tax result file. Did it give the proper number verbatim? That's pretty damming. Did it just reply "You're not getting a tax return"? That's just 50/50 odds.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 4 months ago (8 children)

Weird. The original article says "accused", but on Lemmy they're already found guilty.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I respectfully disagree. I think small time AI (read: pretty much all the custom models on hugging face) will get a giant boost out of this, since they can get away with training on "custom" data sets - since they are too small to be held accountable.

However, those models will become worthless to enterprise level models, since they wouldn't be able to account for the legality. In other words, once you make big bucks of of AI you'll have to prove your models were sourced properly. But if you're just creating a model for small time use, you can get away with a lot.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You should change your name to afraid_of_reality. Have fun in your dream world, I'm out.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

People keep saying that, all the while ignoring that this bill is granting rights to small time creators to decide if they want their works used for machine learning.

Yes, this gives a head start to companies that have been abusing the system while it was still allowed. But stopping that behaviour too late is still better than not stopping it at all.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

What are you basing that on?

Content owners, including broadcasters, artists, and newspapers, could sue companies they believe used their materials without permission or tampered with authentication markers.

Doesn't say anything about the right just applying to giant tech companies, it specifically mentions artists as part of the protected content owners.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I'm sure that's how it works in your ideal world or imaginationland. But you do realise there's like no legal basis for this in the real world, right? Just because you downloaded an Iron man torrent, does not mean you own part of the MCU.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (10 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

Hopefully the next step: force every platform that deals in user generated content to give users the choice to exploit that content for a fraction of the profit, or to exclude their content from processing.

It's amazing how many people don't realize that they themselves also hold copyright over their content, and that laws like these protect them as well.

view more: ‹ prev next ›