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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm the opposite, actually. I like generative AI. But as a creator who shares his work with the public for their (non-commercial) enjoyment, I am not okay with a billionaire industry training their models on my content without my permission, and then use those models as a money machine.
Nope, that's not what I'm arguing at all. I was just pointing out how the commenter above me was misrepresenting the judges reasoning.
Obviously people should get angry over this. But I do not have enough faith in social media to believe that anger will find a healthy outlet if left unmanaged.
But if you are asking for my opinion - I think the woman should be allowed to tell her story, as long as she doesn't encourage naming the perpetrators or does so herself. And, given the circumstances / if possible, disable public comments and reposting to discourage further harassment.
They're not taking it offline because they're denying those kids were bullies, but because they are now harassed themselves, but by the entire Internet.
Obviously the kids responsible for the suicide should face consequences for their actions. But mob justice isn't going to fix anything, except for letting a new round of bullies feel good about themselves.
Can you imagine the damage of one careless keyboard warrior digging up the wrong personal info, and then tend of thousands people harassing them? How many wrongs does it take to make a right?
So does that include running or even building/tuning a model yourself, or just sending money to a saas for api calls?
The former would still be kinda interesting. The latter... That's just stupid AND boring.
Good find, that explains.