335
submitted 5 months ago by sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
top 23 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] BubbleMonkey@slrpnk.net 96 points 5 months ago

I find this wholly unsurprising.

All ai projects should be forced to show the entirety of their training data. I don’t give a flying fuck if they want to call it proprietary, they don’t own most of the data in the first place. Even if they bought it, it doesn’t belong to them, just like we don’t own digital movies we buy.

And if even a single piece of that training data doesn’t have proper licensing for that specific use for that specific model, or they are ever found to have withheld any of the data, the model as a whole should be immediately scrapped, along with everything even tangentially derived from it, and the company should be fined fully double whatever amount of money that model generated or one years revenue for the company as a whole, whichever is more (no I don’t care if this leads to bankruptcy, should have thought about that before you stole data), and like use if for affordable housing programs or public schools or something, whatever.

They can try again with clean data, also subject to review. One time. Second time they do the same shady shit, permanently banned from the entire sector.

But regardless, we need to stop rewarding them for this behavior. And we need the consequences to actually hurt or we can expect it to get worse, not better.

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

All ai projects should be forced to show the entirety of their training data.

Agreed—but note that in this case the information was only discovered because the organizations involved (Common Crawl and LAION) do show their data. We should assume that proprietary data sets have similar issues—but this case should be seen as an opportunity to improve one of the rare open data sets, not to penalize its openness and further entrench proprietary sources.

[-] helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

The problem with that plan is it requires actual punishment for a large corporation and that is bad for campaign funds.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 1 points 5 months ago

Don't stop there. All software should be required to be open source, especially anything that is used by the government or enough of the citizens that it impacts national security

[-] rcbrk@lemmy.ml 31 points 5 months ago

"Current AI models cannot forget data they were trained on, even if the data was later removed from the training data set," Han's report said.

Bullshit. You delete the entire model and start again.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip -4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I now understand Israel motives

[-] TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago

Grass is green, water is wet, the sky is blue, and privacy settings don't do anything.

[-] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago

I just assume now that any content or data that I make available to a company will be exploited by them. So I don't do it. It's pretty sad to be honest. I want to keep things special and share with the people I know and love but I can't do it without also sharing with others at the same time, who cheapen and abuse it. Intimacy, trust and shared experience as a core part of human life is being erased and I don't think anyone is really even noticing it happen to them.

[-] istanbullu@lemmy.ml 11 points 5 months ago

This is such a bad headline. There is no "the AI". There are lots of different people doing unrelated things.

[-] mranachi@aussie.zone 2 points 5 months ago

You're right, it doesn't at all capture how disturbing the reality is.

Ignored privacy settings; unknown third parties can train AI models on data scrapped from private images and video host on common social media platforms.

[-] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago

Make sure you make your voice known at the roundtable on AI patent and copyright. We should own our own bodies, voices, photos, etc. They are ours. https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/events/public-roundtable-ai-and-protections-for-use-of-individuals-name-image-or-likeness

[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 9 points 5 months ago

Me can’t believe it.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

So if I mark my phone as being owned by a kid, do I get extra legal protection?

I buy sunscreen made for babies for similar reasons.

[-] drwho@beehaw.org 3 points 5 months ago

Don't bet the farm on it.

[-] Mango@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Hey parents, wanna let me hold your money for safe keeping? I sure you it's safer with me.

Maybe instead, so ya wanna stop getting your fucking children involved with proprietary software and remote hosting ya fucking dunces!??!

[-] drwho@beehaw.org 3 points 5 months ago

I won that bet.

[-] theilleist@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

While I personally wouldn't want AI inserting trains into photos of my kids without my consent, many kids like trains, and they could add some whimsy to an otherwise uninteresting picture.

[-] xthexder@l.sw0.com -1 points 5 months ago

I know you're making a joke, but this doesn't really feel like the place to do it given the subject being discussed.

[-] theilleist@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

Yeah, robots looking at photos of kids that their parents voluntarily posted on the internet is no laughing matter. Way more serious than, say, violent crime. And nobody makes jokes about that, do they?

[-] xthexder@l.sw0.com 0 points 5 months ago

I personally don't appreciate jokes about violence either, but whatever. I'm not policing the Internet.

[-] theilleist@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago

Aw, come on.

"Cartoonist found dead in home. Details are sketchy."

"Where's the best place to hide after committing murder? Behind a badge."

"Did you know today is the anniversary of the Jonestown massacre? I'd tell you a joke about it, but the punch line is too long."

[-] xthexder@l.sw0.com 0 points 5 months ago

We clearly do not share a sense of humor.

[-] theilleist@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago

You remind me of God in this classic:

A holocaust survivor dies of old age and goes to heaven. When he gets there, he meets God and tells him a holocaust joke.

God says, "That’s not funny."

And the man says, "I guess you had to be there."

this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
335 points (98.6% liked)

Privacy

32177 readers
658 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS