this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2026
1154 points (98.5% liked)

Fuck AI

7560 readers
2040 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 30 points 9 hours ago (18 children)

I agree with the conclusion, but that rationale is wrong. First, you can digitize a DVD. Second, it's not a double standard. You can grab copies of random stuff and jam it in an AI model too.
Our laws are written such that it's making a copy outside of reasonable use that's illegal, and AI training only makes a copy incidentally to what they're doing and then it's deleted. It's the same standard that makes viewing a photo on an artists website legal.

It's not bullshit because they're breaking the law, but because we need to refine the law to make it clear training an AI model isn't a reasonable usage anymore than a public broadcast of a DVD is a reasonable use.
Trying to shoehorn it into the existing laws will just create a nightmare of loopholes and complications.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 9 points 5 hours ago (6 children)

AI training only makes a copy incidentally to what they’re doing and then it’s deleted. It’s the same standard that makes viewing a photo on an artists website legal.

That's not what the U.S. Copyright office says about training. They hold that it does implicate the copyright of reproduction. Meaning: If you train on a protected work without a license you are violating copyright, and if that's not a fair use then you are breaking the law.

Training ~ viewing might be an analogy used by "AI" brands, but it is not legal reality.

[–] cavitationfetishist01@quokk.au 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Its a slopper who wants to project these spreadsheets as 'conscious' when what's happening is they're essentially being transcoded into statistical models.

[–] bss03@infosec.pub 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Yup. Give a Markov chain multi-billion parameters and you can get some surprisingly cogent results.

I will freely admit that current LLM architectures include several innovations that make them not actually Markov chains, but it's still statistics and linear algebra. I don't know what thought is, but I'm quite unconvinced that LLMs (or any current generative AI architecture) is doing it.

[–] RogueJello@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

I don’t know what thought is, but I’m quite unconvinced that LLMs (or any current generative AI architecture) is doing it.

Okay, why not? I also don't know what thought is, so I don't think it's possible to say if an LLM is or is not doing it. And giving wrong or incoherent answers doesn't invalidate it as thought or your local stoner buddy would be considered brain dead.

[–] cavitationfetishist01@quokk.au 1 points 33 minutes ago* (last edited 32 minutes ago)

Nah. Shut the fuck up slopper. If you're going to insult us and then ask chatgpt to win the argument, which you always do and it always misses the point, I'm not going to answer your question.

The fact is these systems can do what a lot of humans do. That's not because the matrix multiplication is identical to thinking, but because most of these humans have never thought in their lives, do not have interiority, and are not people in any way that matters. Prove you're conscious if you want me to address you as such, fucking slopper.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)