You should accept Unicode; if doing so, you must count each code as one char.

Hmm. I wonder about this one. Different ways to encode the same character. Different ways to calculate the length. No obvious max byte size.

I think, for a lot of people, technology has come to mean a few websites, or companies.

There are a few lemmy communities dedicated to AI, but they are very inactive. Basically, I’d have to send you to Reddit.

Americans may be seeing serious savings in that picture.

I am seeing serious evolutionary pressure on liver genetics.

Das wird so nicht funktionieren. Es ist ziemlich egal, wie du die Verleumdung verbreitest. Es kommt darauf an, dass du es tust.

In diesem Fall ist es ziemlich unwahrscheinlich, dass irgendjemand bei OpenAI jemals auch nur von diesem Mann gehört hat. Wie können sie ihn dann verleumden?

Sollte sein Ruf durch das Produkt gelitten haben, dann gäbe es wahrscheinlich die Möglichkeit Schadenersatz zu verlangen. Der Artikel gibt aber keinen Hinweis auf so einen Schaden. Ich sehe nicht mal einen Hinweis, dass sonst irgendwer ChatGPT über den Mann befragt hätte, geschweige denn die Aussage geglaubt hat.

Ich verstehe, dass du dich irgendwie gestört fühlst. Man könnte die Gesetze ändern. Aber was genau will man damit erreichen? Warum ist es so wichtig zu kontrollieren, was andere Leute mit ihren Geräten machen?

Mir geht es bei dieser Frage um diesen Willen zur Machtausübung. Es gibt ja schon ultra-viele Vorschriften, sodass man Computer-technisch kaum was machen kann. Ich glaube nicht, dass es Lemmy-Instanzen in der EU gibt, die rechtskonform sind. Was soll sowas?

The memory feature of ChatGPT is basically like a human taking notes. Of course, the AI can also use other documents as reference. This technique is called RAG. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrieval-augmented_generation

Sidenote. This isn’t the place to ask technical questions about AI. It’s like asking your friendly neighborhood evangelical about evolution.

I have the distinct impression that a number of people would object to the purpose of re-hosting their content as part of a commercial service, especially one run by Google.

Anyway, now no one has to worry about Google helping people bypass their robots.txt or IP-blocks or whatever counter-measures they take. And Google doesn’t have to worry about being sued. Next stop: The Wayback Machine.

Wenn dich die NPCs in einem Spiel als Milchtrinker beleidigen, wirst du damit leben müssen. Das heißt aber nicht, dass es eine Ausnahme für Programme gibt. So funktioniert das nicht.

Er hat eine Maschine bedient, die Texte generiert. Mit der Maschine hat er einen Text erzeugt, der ihn verleumdet. Soll er sich selber anzeigen?

Nicht vergessen, dass die KI kein Mensch ist. Und wenn, wäre es Beleidigung, wenn nicht nachgewiesen wird, dass die Falschbehauptung auch gegenüber anderen gemacht wurde.

Ich denke, die Hersteller sollten deutlicher auf die Schwächen der Anwendung hinweisen. Ein älterer Mensch weiß ja nicht, was das ist, wenn auf einmal Copilot im Edge Browser auftaucht. Aber ob sowas Schadenersatz wegen seelischer Grausamkeit oä rechtfertigt, glaube ich eher nicht.

Knowing people who are not famous but are SAG-AFTRA actors, I’m going to have to disagree very much on that.

How do likeness rights benefit non-famous people?

Turning likeness into an intellectual property implies the right to sell it. Apparently you want to argue for likeness, so I don’t see why you would use such clauses as an argument.

That’s a poor and fallacious argument there.

It’s not an argument, as you have recognized. I hoped it would make you think.

You know that not everyone in Hollywood is part of SAG-AFTRA, right? Have you ever wondered what happened to them during the strike? I guess they just have to fend for themselves. If the “union” doesn’t care about those guys, do you think the leadership cares about the small members?

Actors are a conservative lot. At the bottom, you have the “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” and at the top… Well, you know. It’s not common on lemmy to cheer for such a system.

Shocked? You’d think all the people outraged at having their websites scraped would be delighted. That’s probably the real reason for this.

I wonder how many of them would actually stand in solidarity with, say, warehouse workers.

Why do you believe that?

That probably indicates a problem with the estimates.

From the source:

Our primary approach calculates training costs based on hardware depreciation and energy consumption over the duration of model training. Hardware costs include AI accelerator chips (GPUs or TPUs), servers, and interconnection hardware. We use either disclosures from the developer or credible third-party reporting to identify or estimate the hardware type and quantity and training run duration for a given model. We also estimate the energy consumption of the hardware during the final training run of each model.

As an alternative approach, we also calculate the cost to train these models in the cloud using rented hardware. This method is very simple to calculate because cloud providers charge a flat rate per chip-hour, and energy and interconnection costs are factored into the prices. However, it overestimates the cost of many frontier models, which are often trained on hardware owned by the developer rather than on rented cloud hardware.

https://epochai.org/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-train-frontier-ai-models

It’s like with people who are stuck in traffic. They are frustrated and so they wish for for change. They wish for more lanes and more roads (and bigger cars, faster cars, more cars). The natural human reaction when something doesn’t work is: Try the same thing harder! It’s not to try something else.

I think we have all been in situations where we failed to push a door open, and so we angrily pushed again harder before easily pulling the door open.

I see lots of people agreeing that there is a problem, as evidenced by the popularity of the term “enshittification”. But the reaction is to double down on the policies that got us here.

You can see that in AI threads here. People call for more intellectual property, more silo-ing of data. Of course, that won’t work and Doctorow has explained that on several occasions. https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/#bullied-schoolkids https://doctorow.medium.com/https-pluralistic-net-2024-05-13-spooky-action-at-a-close-up-invisible-hand-5c873636eb47

Other institutions that are apparently considered trustworthy also “side with AI companies”, in that they understand that fair use is in the interest of society. For example, libraries including the Internet Archive. https://www.librarycopyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AI-principles.pdf https://blog.archive.org/2023/11/02/internet-archive-submits-comments-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/

“framework wherein a programmer would have more decision over how their code is used” <> “governing tech democratically”

That’s a bit of a contradiction, no?

You do realize that the vast majority of voice actors are not famous right?

Yes, that’s the point. You are not defending voice actors by demanding likeness rights.

I am not sure why this is so difficult to understand. Maybe there is some confusion about the technology. You only need a few seconds of audio to clone a voice. You don’t need hours of audio from a professional. That’s why the tech can be used for scams. Likeness rights won’t create jobs for voice actors. Only free money for famous people. You can also generate random voices.

Leading AI voice companies like Elevenlabs require you to have permission to clone a voice. But how can they check if their customers are being truthful? In practice, it simply means that famous people, whose voices are known, may not be imitated. Likeness rights, by their nature, can only be enforced, with any kind of effectiveness, for the rich and famous.

OpenAI tried to hire Johansson. When she declined, they hired a different, less famous actress. Maybe they did that to defend against lawsuits, or maybe it gives better results. If they had engineered a nonexistent voice, it would be almost impossible to make the case that they did not imitate Johansson. But still, everyone is talking about that poor famous, rich person who got ripped off. What about the actress who actually provided the voice? I guess she can look for another job, because Johansson owns that voice type.

one of the few influential unions in the US

You mean Ronald Reagan’s old outfit? Do you even know who Ronald Reagan was?

Nicht nur das. In Spielen ist der Ausdruck geläufig. In Spielen gibt es KI-Gegner, vielleicht mit einstellbarem Schwierigkeitsgrad. Wer bei Titeln wie Skyrim oder Fallout mal unter die Haube schaut weiß, dass die NPCs von AI packages gesteuert werden. Es irritiert mich immer so, wenn Leute auf dicke Birne machen, indem sie sagen, KI sei nur ein Marketingausdruck und dann noch Zustimmung ernten. Technikaffinen Leuten unter 40 müsste der Ausdruck doch längst geläufig sein, auch wenn man damit natürlich nichts über den Stand der Forschung weiß.

Dad Problem

Ich sah, was du tatest.