I have conflicting feelings about this whole thing. If you are selling the result of training like OpenAI does (and every other company), then I feel like it’s absolutely and clearly not fair use. It’s just theft with extra steps.

On the other hand, what about open source projects and individuals who aren’t selling or competing with the owners of the training material? I feel like that would be fair use.

What keeps me up at night is if training is never fair use, then the natural result is that AI becomes monopolized by big companies with deep pockets who can pay for an infinite amount of random content licensing, and then we are all forever at their mercy for this entire branch of technology.

The practical, socioeconomic, and ethical considerations are really complex, but all I ever see discussed are these hard-line binary stances that would only have awful corporate-empowering consequences, either because they can steal content freely or because they are the only ones that will have the resources to control the technology.

The guy stomps on innocent, unsuspecting little turtles and occasionally burns them alive. Of course it should be flagged.

Sorry, someone already “owns” that land. Your home is prison now.

303 natives were convicted and sentenced to death following the Dakota War of 1862. Lincoln actually commuted the sentences of 264 of those natives, allowing the convictions to stand only for those he believed personally engaged in the murder of innocent women and children.

Therefore, the last one is deliberately and intentionally misleading.

There’s no need for huge, expensive datacenters when we can run everything on our own devices. SLMs and local AI is the future.

The point of DEI is to overcome bias. If you are hiring, and you have a white guy and a woman of color, and the woman is a better choice, are you actually able to recognize that fact or will you be biased in favor of the white guy without even realizing it? And yes, the “without even realizing it” is literally the most important part, and the reason DEI programs/training are necessary.

So being “hired as a DEI” means you were hired for your qualifications despite being at a disadvantage due to social biases, and being “fired as a DEI” means you were likely the victim of overt discrimination.

That would be great. It would make it a lot easier to convince people to try Ubuntu.

That article literally equates liberalism and leftism. Those are different, distinct things.

You know, it’s almost like the authors are just carrying that right-wing propaganda instead of checking the actual definitions of the terms they’re using…

Authoritarianism is right wing.

There is no “left wing authoritarianism”. If there is authoritarianism then it is right wing.

Yes, even that country. That one, too. And that one. Now you’re starting to get it.

Rightists love to use leftist labels whenever it suits their purposes. It’s called “propaganda”.

It’s not just government that is the problem. The problem is that the data has been collected. It’s still being collected. It already exists. And think about that incompetence you mentioned… do you think that data is safe from less incompetent actors?

The best time for action on protecting privacy was yesterday. The second best is right now.

Privacy no longer exists; it’s now little more than an illusion.

If you use modern technology at all, even your own thoughts aren’t safe. Existing ad tech can intuit what you are thinking before you are even aware of it, and AI will be able to dig even deeper into your mind in the near future. There is no escape.

Fire and brimstone preachers used to scream about how God was always watching, but regardless of whether you believe in that sort thing, one thing is true: technology is always watching, and your identity and innermost thoughts can be reassembled at any time by any number of entities, and you wouldn’t even know.