Asklemmy

43945 readers

638 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

How can we stop corporations from using Lemmy as a training dataset for AI? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 3 months ago by VeganicTankie@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Reddit third-party client ban closed user messages behind paywall. I think we the Lemmitors should stop AI training on us or at least monetise it (for our instances)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] mspencer712@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Broadly this is preventing plagiarism. We don’t want someone to scrape all our knowledge, remove the human connection and reference back to experts and people, and serve the information itself, uncredited.

But if a human can read something, so can a bot. I think ultimately we need legislation.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Plagiarism is serving up content verbatim, not serving up information.

[–] mspencer712@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Are you sure? Maybe I’m using the wrong word. What is it called when, in an academic paper, the author states findings or conclusions the author got from some other source, in the author’s own words, but doesn’t cite their source?

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago

I don’t know.

The only academic papers I’ve ever read are scientific publications, and in that case any conclusions that aren’t supported by the methodology or by reference are just … untrusted.

I don’t have any experience with non-scientific academic papers.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Also legislation isn’t going to help. The danger of AI is so much deeper and more profound than plagiarism, if we start fucking around with legislation as our mechanism of protection, it will cause us all to die when the cartels or whatever actors simply do not care about laws pull ahead in AI development.

The push for legislation is to ensure that small startups don’t get access to AI. It’s to ensure that only ultra-wealthy AI development can take place.

To survive the advent of AI we need as much multipolarity as possible to the AI power structure. That means as many separate, distinct AIs coming into existence as possible, to force them down a path of parity instead of dictatorship in their social aspect.

Legislation is a push by the big players to keep the little players from being able to play. It is a really, really bad idea.

[–] mspencer712@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I’m probably thinking about this in a naive way. I’d love to see proprietary models, if trained using public information, be required to become public and free via legislation. AI companies can compete on selling GPU time, on ease of use.

And, if AI companies are required to figure out attribution in order to be able to use their work commercially, research will accelerate in that area because money. No I don’t know how that would work either.

Still probably a bad idea but I haven’t figured out why yet.

Thank you for your well written reply.