Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
Abolition is simply not going to happen, though. It’s not a realistic goal. AI has proven to be useful and enough technology has been released as open source that it’s going to continue to be developed even if the big obvious targets like OpenAI stop.
Okay, so you don’t collaborate with them, and they carry on developing AI their own way without your input. Probably not going to lead to the outcome you hope for.
This is a problem I see for a lot of the stridently anti-AI commenters I’ve encountered both here and on Reddit; all they want is for AI to not exist, and refuse to engage in any way beyond that. But AI does exist, it’s not going to “go away”, and so by approaching it that way they give up any opportunity to influence it.
Anything that pushes back copyright is fine by me.
A local model is just a giant matrix of numbers, so as long as you’re running it locally you can be sure it’s not secretly recording or communicating information with any outside source. Just make sure you trust the software that’s running it (there’s plenty of open source alternatives for that that have nothing to do with China).
And since it’s an open weight model, any remaining reluctance to talk about whatever subject can be abliterated or fine-tuned away if it’s really a problem.
The fact that Anna’s Archive is accepting additional datasets as “payment” makes me comfortable that they’re not in this for the money but rather for ideological reasons.
Guess we’ve finally reached the moment where letting the giant intellectual property cartels monopolize human culture is going to cause serious economic side effects for other big corporations rather than simply screwing over the general public.
Because very few people are ever going to turn an optional feature on, whether they would ultimately like it or not. They need to be shown it. If they hate it, they will turn it off.
I was reading the other day about advances in zinc ion batteries as a possible replacement for lithium ion batteries in applications like this. They’re heavier than lithium ion, which is just fine for energy storage facilities like this, but they retain their capacity through a lot more charge/discharge cycles (the article I was reading said they drop to 80% capacity after 100,000 cycles - if that’s one cycle a day then that’s nearly 300 years) and most importantly for this specific situation they’re not flammable.
The site producing the nonsense has to produce lots of it any time a bot comes along, the trainers only have to filter it once. As others have pointed out it’s likely easy for an automated filter to spot. I don’t see it as being a clear win.
No, a few million hits from bots is routine for anything that’s facing the public at all. Others have posted on this thread (or others like it, this article’s been making the rounds a lot in the past few days) that even the most basic of sites can get that sort of bot traffic, and that it’s just a simple recursion depth limit setting to avoid the “infinite maze” aspect.
As for AI training, the access log says nothing about that. As I said, AI training sets are not made by just dumping giant piles of randomly scraped text on AIs any more. If a trainer scraped one of those “infinite maze” sites the quality of the resulting data would be checked, and if it was generated by anything remotely economical for the site to be running it’d almost certainly be discarded as junk.
An even easier way to hide stuff is to not put it online in the first place.
A bot that’s ignoring robots.txt is likely going to be pretending to be human. If your site has valuable content that you want to show to humans, how do you distinguish them from the bots?
Indeed. And any modern AI training system is going to be extensively curating any training data that ends up being fed into the AI, probably processing it through other AIs to generate synthetic data from it. The days of early ChatGPT where LLMs were trained by just dumping giant piles of random text on them and hoping it’ll figure it out somehow are long past.
This reminds me of Nightshade, the supposed anti-art-AI technique that could be defeated by resizing the image (which all art AI training systems do as a matter of course). It may make people “feel better” but it’s not going to have any real impact on anything.
This sort of thing has been a strategy for dealing with unwanted web crawlers since web crawlers were a thing. It’s an arms race, though; crawlers do things to detect these “mazes” and so the maze-makers keep needing to up their game as well.
As we enter an age where AI is effectively passing the Turing Test, it’s going to be tricky making traps for them that don’t also ensnare the actual humans you’re trying to serve pages to.
Why do i want a copy of something I am only going to watch once?
Delete it when you’re done if you never want to watch it again.
And why should I keep a copy if I can just stream it again from the same or some different site for free in the future?
I thought you just said you wouldn’t want to watch it again?
Obviously there are people who do watch pirate streams. I’m just pointing out how odd it is in the context of this thread, where people are complaining about dependency on outside resources, and how alien it is to my personal approach to this kind of thing.
It really baffles me when I hear about “pirate streaming sites” being taken down. Why are those even a thing? If you’re into piracy already, why not download a copy?
The problem is they’re going to either try to make money with it or do some black hat shit that this will help facilitate.
And then they will fail at it, because that’s not what these tools are for. I don’t see why this is a problem.
If someone is asking you “hey, I want to use this Replit thing to build a competitor to Amazon, I have an MBA so I’m sure I can do it. Want to invest?” Then by all means try to talk them down off the ledge or make sure you’re far enough away to not be in the splash zone.
But this is someone saying “I want to make tools that non-experts can use to do productive things.” I think it’s not fair or reasonable to oppose that. Making computers more accessible and generally useful to the public is a good thing.
If it’s really not useful then there’s no need to burn it down. It’s expensive to run so anyone using it must just be burning money themselves.
That’s not true, though. I know it’s not true because I’m making extensive use of AI myself, and it is indeed useful. I even run local models for some of the tasks I use AI with. I can assure you it’s not going away because I have all the tools I need to keep on using it indefinitely, even if for some reason the companies producing this stuff all shut down or stopped right this moment.
It may not be useful to you, and that’s fine - use it or don’t, it’s up to you. But it’s not going away because other people do want to use it for various things.