• nasduia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why does OpenAI want 10 year old answers about using jQuery whenever anyone posts a JavaScript question, followed by aggressive policing of what is and isn’t acceptable to re-ask as technology moves on?

  • Simon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why?? Please make this make sense. Having AI to help with coding is ideal and the greatest immediate use case probably. The web is an open resource. Why die on this stupid hill instead of advocating for a privacy argument that actually matters?

    • Facebones@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Good to know as capitalism flounders this modern Red Scare extends into tech.

      You’re explicitly ignoring everything everyone is saying just cause you want to call everyone technocommies lmfao.

    • TheObviousSolution@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Because being able to delete your data from social networks you no longer wish to participate in or that have banned you, as long as they specifically haven’t paid you for the your contributions, is a privacy argument that actually matters, regardless and independent of AI.

      In regards to AI, the problem is not with AI in general but with proprietary for-profit AI getting trained with open resources, even those with underlying license agreements that prevent that information being monetized.

      • Simon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Now this is something I can get behind. But I was talking about the decision to retaliate in the first place.

    • Allero@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because none of the big companies listen to the privacy argument. Or any argument, really.

      AI in itself is good, amazing, even.

      I have no issue with open-source, ideally GPL- or similarly licensed AI models trained on Internet data.

      But involuntarily participating in training closed-source corporate AI’s…no, thanks. That shit should go to the hellhole it was born in, and we should do our best to destroy it, not advocate for it.

      If you care about the future of AI, OpenAI should long be on your enemy list. They expropriated an open model, they were hypocritical enough to keep “open” in the name, and then they essentially sold themselves to Microsoft. That’s not the AI future we should want.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Hating on everything AI is trendy nowdays. Most of these people can’t give you any coherent explanation for why. They just adopt the attitude of people around them who also don’t know why.

      I believe the general reasoning is something along the lines of not wanting bad corporations to profit from their content for free. So it’s just a matter of principle for the most part. Perhaps we need to wait for someone to train LLM on the freely available to everyone data on Lemmy and then we can interview it to see what’s up.

      • Eyck_of_denesle@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Mega co operations like Microsoft, Google are evil. Very easy explanation. Even if it was a good open source company scraping the data to train ai models, people should be free to delete the datta they input. It’s pretty simple to understand.

    • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why do people roll coal? Why do vandalize electric car chargers? Why do people tie ropes across bike lanes?

      Because a changing world is scary and people lash out at new things.

      The coal rollers think they’re fighting a vallient fight against evil corporations too, they invested their effort into being a car guy and it doesn’t feel fair that things are changing so they want to hurt people benefitting from the new tech.

      • Simon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The deeper I get into this platform the more I realize the guise of being ‘progressive, left, privacy-conscious, tech inclined’ is literally the opposite.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Were in a capitalist system and these are for-profit companies, right? What do you think their goal is. It isn’t to help you. It’s to increase profits. That will probably lead to massive amounts of jobs replaced with AI and we will get nothing for giving them the data to train on. It’s purely parasitic. You should not advocate for it.

      If it’s open and not-for-profit, it can maybe do good, but there’s no way this will.

      • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why can’t they increase profits, by you know, making the product better.

        Do they have to make things shitter to save money and drive away people thus having to make it more shitter.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          If they make it better that may increase profits temporarily, as they draw customers away from competitors. Once you don’t have any competitors then the only way to increase profits is to either decrease expenses or increase revenue. Increasing revenue is limited if you’re already sucking everything you can.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              To us? No, it isn’t wrong. To them? Absolutely. You don’t becoming a billionaire by thinking you can have enough. You don’t dominate a market while thinking you don’t need more.

      • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Meta and Google have done more for open source ai than anyone else, I think a lot of antis don’t really understand how computer science works so you imagine it’s like them collecting up physical iron and taking it into a secret room never to be seen again.

        The actual tools and math is what’s important, research on best methods is complex and slow but so far all these developments are being written up in papers which anyone can use to learn from - if people on the left weren’t so performative and lazy we could have our own ai too

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I studied computer science in university. I know how computer science works.

    • iltg@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      humanity progress is spending cities worth of electricity and water to ask copilot how to use a library and have it lie back to you in natural language? please make this make sense

      • Simon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        ??? So why don’t we get better at making energy than get scared about using a renewable resource. Fuck it let’s just go back to the printing press.

        Amazing to me how stuff like this gets upvoted on a supposedly progressive platform.

  • Hypx@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Eventually, we will need a fediverse version of StackOverflow, Quora, etc.

    • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      We already have the SO data. We could populate such a tool with it and start from there.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly? I’m down with that. And when the LLM’s end up pricing themselves out of usefulness, we’ll still have the fediverse version. Having free sites on the net with solid crowd-sourced information is never a bad thing even if other people pick up the data and use it.

        It’s when private sites like Duolingo and Reddit crowd source the information and then slowly crank down the free aspect that we have the problems.

        The Ad sponsored web model is not viable forever.

        • bort@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Ad sponsored web model is not viable forever.

          a thousand times this

      • chameleon@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        SO already was. Not even harvested as much as handed to them. Periodic data dumps and a general forced commitment to open information were a big part of the reason they won out over other sites that used to compete with them. SO most likely wouldn’t have existed if Experts Exchange didn’t paywall their entire site.

        As with everything else, AI companies believe their training data operates under fair use, so they will discard the CC-SA-4.0 license requirements regardless of whether this deal exists. (And if a court ever finds it’s not fair use, they are so many layers of fucked that this situation won’t even register.)

      • Rolando@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        But users and instances would be able to state that they do not want their content commercialized. On StackOverflow you have no control over that.

      • mox@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Assuming the federated version allowed contributor-chosen licenses (similar to GitHub), any harvesting in violation of the license would be subject to legal action.

        Contrast that with Stack Exchange, where I assume the terms dictated by Stack Exchange deprive contributors of recourse.

      • sramder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        At this point I’m assuming most if not all of these content deals are essentially retroactive. They already scrapped the content and found it useful enough to try and secure future use, or at least exclude competitors.

      • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah but didn’t you see the sovereign citizens who think licenses are magic posting giant copyright notices after their posts? Lol

        It’s so childish, ai tools will help billions of the poorest people access life saving knowledge and services, help open source devs like myself create tools that free people from the clutches of capitalism, but they like living in a world of inequity because their generational wealth earned from centuries of exploitation of the impoverished allows them a better education, better healthcare, and better living standards than the billions of impoverished people on the planet so they’ll fight to maintain their privilege even if they’re fighting against their own life getting better too. The most pathetic thing is they pretend to be fighting a moral crusade, as if using the answers they freely posted and never expected anything in return for is a real injustice!

        And yes I know people are going to pretend that they think tech bros won’t allow poor people to use their tech and they base this on assuming how everything always works will suddenly just flip Into reverse at some point or something? Like how mobile phones are only for rich people and only rich people can sell via the internet and only rich people can start a YouTube channel…

        • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Arguably, they need to do way instain mother> who kill thier babbys. becuse these babby cant frigth back?

          It’s important to remember that it was on the news this mroing a mother in ar who had kill her three kids.

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Hey, early Yahoo answers was very useful. A de-shittified, federated, stripped down to the bare questions-answers network could be neat.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Smells too much like duo-lingo. Here, everyone jump in and answers all the questions. 5 years later, ohh look at this gold mine of community data we own…

        • residentmarchant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          This was actually the whole original point of Duolingo. The founder previously created Recaptcha to crowd source machine vision of scanned books.

          His whole thing is crowd sourcing difficult tasks that machines struggle with by providing some sort of reason to do it (prevent spam at first and learn a language now)

          From what I understand Duolingo just got too popular and the subscription service they offer made them enough money to be happy with.

    • herrcaptain@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right? It seems like the modern internet is made up of like 5 monolithic sites, and unlimited SEO spam.

      I know that’s not literally true, but it sure feels like it.

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fortunately the AIs are getting quite good at answering technical questions like these.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think the reason for those bans is that they don’t want you rebelling and are showing that they don’t need you personally, thus ban.

        Of course it’s all retained.

  • Daerun@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Good to know that stackoverflow will not be a trustable place to find solutuons anymore.

  • Hello Hotel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    To vandolise your own work and to hopefully not get banned, make/edit your posts to include an ‘AI’ response, make it appear as being helpful and have the ‘AI’ say its catchphrases while its clearly malphunctioning. (creativity knob too high/low, poisoned like tay AI, invisable   (nbsp) marks in the middle of words or other unicode corruption like G̸͖̓l̸̠̓i̶̛͓t̸̞̑c̴̯͝h̷̝̾ ̷̨͒ṱ̴̃e̷̤̾x̸̟͊t̷̫͝, obvious programming flaws that makes code not compile, etc)

    Pretend the AI’s answer was useful and wink to the humans that its not.

    Also, I dont discredit @FJW@discuss.tchncs.de’s answer.

    … Frankly, the solution here isn’t vandalism, it’s setting up a competing side and copying the content over. …

    His is less childish. His is the way to move forward. Mine is looking back and ventimg steam.

    … Anything else is just playing around and hoping that a company acts against its own interests, which has rarely ever worked before. …

  • Fiona@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Frankly, the solution here isn’t vandalism, it’s setting up a competing side and copying the content over. The license of stackoverflow makes that explicitly legal. Anything else is just playing around and hoping that a company acts against its own interests, which has rarely ever worked before.

  • pseudo@jlai.lu
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Angry users claim they are enabled to delete their own content from the site through the “right to forget,” a common name for a legal right most effectively codified into law through the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Among other things, the act protects the ability of the consumer to delete their own data from a website, and to have data about them removed upon request. However, Stack Overflow’s Terms of Service contains a clause carving out Stack Overflow’s irrevocable ownership of all content subscribers provide to the site

    It reality irritates me when ToS simply state they will do against the law.

  • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You really don’t need anything near as complex as AI…a simple script could be configured to automatically close the issue as solved with a link to a randomly-selected unrelated issue.