Basically a deer with a human face. Despite probably being some sort of magical nature spirit, his interests are primarily in technology and politics and science fiction.
Spent many years on Reddit before joining the Threadiverse as well.
Yeah, the downvote button isn’t even being used as an “I disagree with this” button in this case, it’s an “I hate the general concept this comment is about” button. And now you’re getting downvoted too for pointing that out.
Guess I should have just said “boy howdy do I ever hate AI, good thing it’s a bubble and everything will go right back to the way things were when it pops” and raked in the upvotes instead.
Deepseek was trained from scratch.
That aside, you’re basically describing the second option I presented; letting everyone else do the AI thing instead.
I wrote:
You appeared to be arguing that there was some other reason, so I was asking what you thought that reason was.
Emphasis added. I only asked questions to clarify what you were saying, since it was unclear.
Weakening regulations doesn’t change this behaviour, just makes it legal
Which, in turn, makes it easier to do.
If you don’t think it makes it easier then we’re back at square one, you don’t seem to be presenting any reason why this change would be made.
No I’m not, I was explaining why I thought they changed it. You appeared to be arguing that there was some other reason, so I was asking what you thought that reason was.
As it turns out, though, you’re saying they changed it for exactly the same reasons I said they were changing it. To let them more easily train AI on that data. So that leaves me wondering what exactly the point of all this was.
So you are saying that weakening these regulations makes it easier for these companies to train AI on that data?
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along too. I’m not sure what you think is being argued about here, or what you think I’m not understanding.
If they’re already doing it then no change is necessary. So why change it?
If making it legal makes it easier for them to do, then that was my original point. That’s why I think they’re making the change.
I explain why I think the thing the article is about is happening, I get pummelled with downvotes because people don’t like the thing I’m explaining. Someone calls me a retard, they get as many upvotes as I got downvotes. Seems like we’re already in a pretty bad spot.
Naive to think the GDPR is stopping anyone now.
So again, why change the rules? If the GDPR is already ineffective there’s no need to loosen it more.
Then why change the rules? The article’s author seems quite convinced that this will make AI training easier.
Did I say you should approve of it? I’m just explaining why it comes as no surprise to me.
Did you read the article? It says that making AI training easier is a key purpose of these changes.
Doesn’t seem terribly surprising to me, the existing rules make it very hard to make use of data for AI training in the EU. Other parts of the world have looser restrictions and they’re developing AI like gangbusters as a result. The EU needed to either loosen up too or accept this entire sector of information tech being foreign-controlled, which would have its own major privacy and security problems.
It’s the approach I’ve been advocating for for years now, throughout this whole lawsuit circus. I got a lot of downvotes for it over the years too, people couldn’t separate my position from capitulation.
Really, it’s just a matter of fighting the battles you can win and not fighting the battles that will annihilate you simply on the basis of principle. The analogy I kept using was a man carrying a precious and fragile treasure going up to a bear and whacking it with a stick, and then acting like we should be sympathetic to them as they desperately scream about how the precious treasure was at risk now that the bear was eating their leg.
They should be focusing on protecting that treasure. Let the EFF take the bear on, that’s what they are for.
Indeed, I consider this to be an okay outcome. It’s the Internet Archive, not the All Information Ever Archive. It archives the Internet. There are other projects archiving books.
And it’s the Internet Archive, not the Internet Barely Disguised Pirate Bay. I’m okay if the data they’re archiving isn’t super easy to access by everyone all the time, as long as it’s being preserved. Someday eventually copyright law might become sane again, at which point these archives can come out of their bunkers. Until then those bunkers are important for keeping them safe.
I really think the Internet Archive did a downright stupid thing poking this bear with a stick. I’m relieved they survived and I hope they learned from the experience.
But you don’t understand, we all hate AI so much that this must be evil somehow.