I was like, how do they know what they have - and you were like “another AI has labelled it all, and every now and then a human checks it’s work”…
It’s AIs all the way down with you.
“Open AI investigated it’s self and confirmed it didn’t have CSAM in the training data”
They couldn’t find out if they wanted to, the training data is too large and the labelling AI isn’t designed to know, or label CSAM.
…and yeah, sitting around and using your time to defend tech-bro billionaires IS creepy. They’re not about to thank you my guy.
“I just understand the technology”
Yeah, and you’re not acknowledging that what I’m saying is accurate. The “labelling AI” can’t recognise and report CSAM, and the Tech Bros don’t have an accurate idea of what they have stored in their training data.
So yeah, your being creepy when you do all these mental gymnastics to defend them…
… it’s just like the claiming the NSA don’t listen to phone conversations, only it’s been revealed they do have human operators hearing bits of conversation.
Your a narc and an apologist, and it’s creepy because it’s misinformation. It’s spin and you’re volunteering your time to defend them.
why are you talking about open ai? They’re not even involved in this.
You asked why they weren’t in legal trouble. I told you.
You asserted that any safeguards they put in place (“they” in this case being an open source project, and a startup that provides their models for free, not the billionaires you think you’re mad at) couldn’t be functional because the tool requires csam to generate csam. I told you that was incorrect, because the whole point is to generate things it hasn’t seen before.
You explode on a set of insult laden rants because, as far as I can tell, you don’t want to say “oh, I misunderstood. I still think they’re grossly irresponsible for not including safeguards in the first place, and how can we actually trust the safeguards they have now?”. You know, like a reasonable person would have.
Instead you assumed that the only reason someone could disagree with your factually incorrect assumptions about how something works, is if they’re a “creepy misinformation spreading narc” (… Narc? That one doesn’t even make sense)
Do you even know what misinformation means? Do you think that “ability to magic csam into existence from nothing” (which is what it can do) is something that I think is somehow better than it only being able to make it from known examples?
I was like, how do they know what they have - and you were like “another AI has labelled it all, and every now and then a human checks it’s work”…
It’s AIs all the way down with you.
“Open AI investigated it’s self and confirmed it didn’t have CSAM in the training data”
They couldn’t find out if they wanted to, the training data is too large and the labelling AI isn’t designed to know, or label CSAM.
…and yeah, sitting around and using your time to defend tech-bro billionaires IS creepy. They’re not about to thank you my guy.
“I just understand the technology”
Yeah, and you’re not acknowledging that what I’m saying is accurate. The “labelling AI” can’t recognise and report CSAM, and the Tech Bros don’t have an accurate idea of what they have stored in their training data.
So yeah, your being creepy when you do all these mental gymnastics to defend them…
… it’s just like the claiming the NSA don’t listen to phone conversations, only it’s been revealed they do have human operators hearing bits of conversation.
Your a narc and an apologist, and it’s creepy because it’s misinformation. It’s spin and you’re volunteering your time to defend them.
You asked why they weren’t in legal trouble. I told you.
You asserted that any safeguards they put in place (“they” in this case being an open source project, and a startup that provides their models for free, not the billionaires you think you’re mad at) couldn’t be functional because the tool requires csam to generate csam. I told you that was incorrect, because the whole point is to generate things it hasn’t seen before.
You explode on a set of insult laden rants because, as far as I can tell, you don’t want to say “oh, I misunderstood. I still think they’re grossly irresponsible for not including safeguards in the first place, and how can we actually trust the safeguards they have now?”. You know, like a reasonable person would have.
Instead you assumed that the only reason someone could disagree with your factually incorrect assumptions about how something works, is if they’re a “creepy misinformation spreading narc” (… Narc? That one doesn’t even make sense)
Do you even know what misinformation means? Do you think that “ability to magic csam into existence from nothing” (which is what it can do) is something that I think is somehow better than it only being able to make it from known examples?