You seem to have the assumption that they’re not. And that “helping society” is anything more than a happy accident that results from “making big profits”.

It’s not an assumption. There’s academic researchers at universities working on developing these kinds of models as we speak.

Are you asking me whether it’s a good idea to give up the concept of “Privacy” in return for an image classifier that detects how much film grain there is in a given image?

I’m not wasting time responding to straw men.

It’s a statistical model. Given a sequence of words, there’s a set of probabilities for what the next word will be.

That is a gross oversimplification. LLM’s operate on much more than just statistical probabilities. It’s true that they predict the next word based on probabilities learned from training datasets, but they also have layers of transformers to process the context provided from a prompt to eke out meaningful relationships between words and phrases.

For example: Imagine you give an LLM the prompt, “Dumbledore went to the store to get ice cream and passed his friend Sam along the way. At the store, he got chocolate ice cream.” Now, if you ask the model, “who got chocolate ice cream from the store?” it doesn’t just blindly rely on statistical likelihood. There’s no way you could argue that “Dumbledore” is a statistically likely word to follow the text “who got chocolate ice cream from the store?” Instead, it uses its understanding of the specific context to determine that “Dumbledore” is the one who got chocolate ice cream from the store.

So, it’s not just statistical probabilities; the models’ have an ability to comprehend context and generate meaningful responses based on that context.

If enforcement means big tech companies have to throw out models because they used personal information without knowledge or consent, boo fucking hoo

A) this article isn’t about a big tech company, it’s about an academic researcher. B) he had consent to use the data when he trained the model. The participants later revoked their consent to have their data used.

How is “don’t rely on content you have no right to use” litteraly impossible?

At the time they used the data, they had a right to use it. The participants later revoked their consent for their data to be used, after the model was already trained at an enormous cost.

ok i guess you don’t get to use private data in your models too bad so sad

You seem to have an assumption that all AI models are intended for the sole benefit of corporations. What about medical models that can predict disease more accurately and more quickly than human doctors? Something like that could be hugely beneficial for society as a whole. Do you think we should just not do it because someone doesn’t like that their data was used to train the model?

There’s nothing that says AI has to exist in a form created from harvesting massive user data in a way that can’t be reversed or retracted. It’s not technically impossible to do that at all, we just haven’t done it because it’s inconvenient and more work.

What if you want to create a model that predicts, say, diseases or medical conditions? You have to train that on medical data or you can’t train it at all. There’s simply no way that such a model could be created without using private data. Are you suggesting that we simply not build models like that? What if they can save lives and massively reduce medical costs? Should we scrap a massively expensive and successful medical AI model just because one person whose data was used in training wants their data removed?

You still use TP if you have a bidet though

The anecdote proves nothing because the model could potentially have known of the McGonagal character without ever being trained on the books, since that character appears in a lot of fan fiction. So their point is invalid and their anecdote proves nothing.

I’m still calling it Twitter because it will piss off Elon Musk if everyone keeps calling it Twitter and I think that’s funny.

Just want to say that this is a fantastic answer. Pay attention to the parts about printing/downloading stuff. There are huge parts of America where you won’t get a reliable cell signal sometimes for hours.

So to be clear, I don’t agree with them that this is a good enough reason to block ranked choice voting. All I’m saying here is that the reason for blocking isn’t just “hur dur Democrats are racist too”, which is the main takeaway of everyone in this comment section.

I mean, they need to ramp it way faster. It’s pretty garbage right now and there’s really no excuse. Compare it to Lemmy and it’s very obvious. Lemmy still has problems, but it’s much easier to use and has way fewer bugs and glitches. If you’re used to Reddit, then switching to Lemmy is pretty easy to do, and I can see average users making that jump. But Mastadon isn’t even close to the user experience that Twitter/X offered, and I cannot see the average Twitter user sticking around and waiting for all the issue to be fixed.

I’m not saying that they’re right. I’m saying that calling them racists who think black people are dumb is a complete mischaracterization.

It won’t last unless Mastadon gets some serious improvements. It’s buggy, glitchy, feature-poor, and confusing to use. There’s no way in its current state it’s going to compete with the big guys for the average person’s attention.

Voters were able to select two candidates and only voted for one

Clarification: low-income voters from predominantly black areas did this, which is effectively disenfranchisement. That’s the concern: that low-income minorities may be disenfranchised by more complex/confusing ballots. The concern is real because it already happened.

You guys are exhausting.

No one is saying black people are too dumb to understand ranked choice. They’re saying that people from low income, predominantly black areas, under-voted when required to choose two candidates on past ballots. That means those people were effectively disenfranchised. If the evidence shows that ranked choice could potentially disenfranchise people from low-income minority areas, that is something to be concerned about.

nowhere in the article is there an explanation by anyone why ranked choice voting would be worse for these groups, just that it would be confusing.

Uh, being confusing is what would make it worse.

I’m not saying that they’re right or wrong. What I’m saying is that the reactions in this comment section of people saying “oh the racist Democrats think black people are too dumb to understand ranked choice” is a complete misrepresentation. The Democrats are saying that the evidence has shown that people in these low-income, predominantly black areas, under-voted when expected to choose two candidates on a ballot, and they’re concerned that this will be an even worse problem on a ranked choice ballot where people may be expected to choose up to 5 candidates.

Disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters should be a concern.

Did anyone read the article? It’s not saying ever you guys think it’s saying. The DC Democrats are saying that in two predominantly black areas, having voters pick two choices on ballots has already led to confusion and that ranked choice will lead to even worse confusion.

They’re not speculating here, they’re describing what’s already known.

I had a pi4 but I found it struggled with transcoding and multiple streams, ended up with too much buffering.

Well in my defense I have no idea what I’m talking about.