510
submitted 7 months ago by ylai@lemmy.ml to c/technology@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] redditReallySucks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 184 points 7 months ago

I hope this is gonna become a new meme template

[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 92 points 7 months ago

She looks like she just talked to the waitress about a fake rule in eating nachos and got caught up by her date.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 80 points 7 months ago

this is incomprehensible to me. can you try it with two or three sentences?

[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 82 points 7 months ago

Her date was eating all the fully loaded nachos, so she went up and ask to the waitress to make up a rule about how one person cannot eat all the nacho with meat and cheese. But her date knew that rule was bullshit and called her out about it. She's trying to look confused and sad because they're going to be too soon for the movie.

[-] uninvitedguest@lemmy.ca 57 points 7 months ago

What?! What the hell are you talking about?!

[-] RatsOffToYa@lemmy.world 53 points 7 months ago

Not sure what's funnier. your first comment or the comment explaining it to someone who obviously not part of a turbo team

[-] fjordbasa@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago

Turbo team?? Did you replace my toilet with one that looks the same but has a joke hole? That’s just FOR FARTS??

[-] RatsOffToYa@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

Look until you're part of the turbo team.... WALK SLOWLY

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 33 points 7 months ago
[-] Plopp@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

Lmao that's wonderful, scrolling down from those weird ass comments only to be greeted by my own exact facial expression.

[-] Buttons@programming.dev 9 points 7 months ago

"No... Hell no... Man, I believe you'd get your ass kicked if you said something like that..."

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social 24 points 7 months ago

thank you. it must be a reference to something, but i don't watch tv any more.

[-] datavoid@lemmy.ml 23 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I think you should leave...

(is what you would search to find this)

[-] JWBananas@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

I'm sorry, what does this have to do with Coffin Flops. Does this mean it isn't getting cancelled?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] squid_slime@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

Chatgpt, you okay? 😅

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Fisk400@feddit.nu 132 points 7 months ago

They know what they fed the thing. Not backing up their own training data would be insane. They are not insane, just thieves

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 26 points 7 months ago

Everyone says this but the truth is copyright law has been unfit for purpose for well over 30 years now. And the lords were written no one expected something like the internet to ever come along and they certainly didn't expect something like AI. We can't just keep applying the same old copyright laws to new situations when they already don't work.

I'm sure they did illegally obtain the work but is that necessarily a bad thing? For example they're not actually making that content available to anyone so if I pirate a movie and then only I watch it, I don't think anyone would really think I should be arrested for that, so why is it unacceptable for them but fine for me?

[-] oKtosiTe@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago

if I pirate a movie and then only I watch it, I don't think anyone would really think I should be arrested for that

There are definitely people out there that think you should be arrested for that.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] _haha_oh_wow_@sh.itjust.works 98 points 7 months ago

Gee, seems like something a CTO would know. I'm sure she's not just lying, right?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 90 points 7 months ago

There is no way in hell it isn’t copyrighted material.

[-] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 66 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Every video ever created is copyrighted.

The question is — do they need a license? Time will tell. This is obviously going to court.

[-] Kazumara@feddit.de 38 points 7 months ago

Don't downvote this guy. He's mostly right. Creative works have copyright protections from the moment they are created. The relevant question is indeed if they have the relevant permissions for their use, not wether it had protections in the first place.

Maybe some surveillance camera footage is not sufficiently creative to get protections, but that's hardly going to be good for machine reinforcement learning.

[-] Buttons@programming.dev 69 points 7 months ago

If I were the reporter my next question would be:

"Do you feel that not knowing the most basic things about your product reflects on your competence as CTO?"

[-] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 34 points 7 months ago

Hilarious, but if the reporter asked this they would find it harder to get invites to events. Which is a problem for journalists. Unless your very well regarded for your journalism, you can't push powerful people without risking your career.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CosmoNova@lemmy.world 58 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I almost want to believe they legitimately do not know nor care they‘re committing a gigantic data and labour heist but the truth is they know exactly what they‘re doing and they rub it under our noses.

[-] laxe@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

Of course they know what they’re doing. Everybody knows this, how could they be the only ones that don’t?

[-] Bogasse@lemmy.ml 16 points 7 months ago

Yeah, the fact that AI progress just relies on "we will make so much money that no lawsuit will consequently alter our growth" is really infuriating. The fact that general audience apparently doesn't care is even more infuriating.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] stackPeek@lemmy.world 50 points 7 months ago

This tellls you so much what kind of company OpenAI is

[-] webghost0101@sopuli.xyz 22 points 7 months ago

An Intelligence piracy company?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Bleach7297@lemmy.ca 44 points 7 months ago

Did they intentionally chose a picture where she looks like she's morphing into Elon?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] anon_8675309@lemmy.world 44 points 7 months ago

CTO should definitely know this.

[-] ItsMeSpez@lemmy.world 45 points 7 months ago

They do know this. They're avoiding any legal exposure by being vague.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] andrew_bidlaw@sh.itjust.works 42 points 7 months ago

Funny she didn't talked it out with lawyers before that. That's a bad way to answer that.

[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 33 points 7 months ago

Or she talked and the lawyers told her to pretend ignorance.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee 25 points 7 months ago

Then wipe it out and start again once you have where your data is coming from sorted out. Are we acting like you having built datacenter pack full of NVIDIA processors just for this sort of retraining? They are choosing to build AI without proper sourcing, that's not an AI limitation.

[-] IvanOverdrive@lemm.ee 21 points 7 months ago

REPORTER: Where does your data come from?

CTO: Bitch, are you trying to get me sued?

[-] PanArab@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago
[-] HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 7 months ago

I don't think so. They aren't reproducing the content.

I think the equivalent is you reading this article, then answering questions about it.

[-] A_Very_Big_Fan@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago

Idk why this is such an unpopular opinion. I don't need permission from an author to talk about their book, or permission from a singer to parody their song. I've never heard any good arguments for why it's a crime to automate these things.

I mean hell, we have an LLM bot in this comment section that took the article and spat 27% of it back out verbatim, yet nobody is pissing and moaning about it "stealing" the article.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 12 points 7 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Mira Murati, OpenAI's longtime chief technology officer, sat down with The Wall Street Journal's Joanna Stern this week to discuss Sora, the company's forthcoming video-generating AI.

It's a bad look all around for OpenAI, which has drawn wide controversy — not to mention multiple copyright lawsuits, including one from The New York Times — for its data-scraping practices.

After the interview, Murati reportedly confirmed to the WSJ that Shutterstock videos were indeed included in Sora's training set.

But when you consider the vastness of video content across the web, any clips available to OpenAI through Shutterstock are likely only a small drop in the Sora training data pond.

Others, meanwhile, jumped to Murati's defense, arguing that if you've ever published anything to the internet, you should be perfectly fine with AI companies gobbling it up.

Whether Murati was keeping things close to the vest to avoid more copyright litigation or simply just didn't know the answer, people have good reason to wonder where AI data — be it "publicly available and licensed" or not — is coming from.


The original article contains 667 words, the summary contains 178 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] dezmd@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

LLM is just another iteration of Search. Search engines do the same thing. Do we outlaw search engines?

[-] AliasAKA@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago

SoRA is a generative video model, not exactly a large language model.

But to answer your question: if all LLMs did was redirect you to where the content was hosted, then it would be a search engine. But instead they reproduce what someone else was hosting, which may include copyrighted material. So they’re fundamentally different from a simple search engine. They don’t direct you to the source, they reproduce a facsimile of the source material without acknowledging or directing you to it. SoRA is similar. It produces video content, but it doesn’t redirect you to finding similar video content that it is reproducing from. And we can argue about how close something needs to be to an existing artwork to count as a reproduction, but I think for AI models we should enforce citation models.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 10 points 7 months ago

So my work uses ChatGPT as well as all the other flavours. It's getting really hard to stay quiet on all the moral quandaries being raised on how these companies are training their AI data.

I understand we all feel like we are on a speeding train that can't be stopped or even slowed down but this shit ain't right. We need to really start forcing businesses to have moral compass.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
510 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59166 readers
1684 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS