Comment by Lumisal@lemmy.world on Proton Mail goes AI, security-focused userbase goes ‘what on earth’

we appear to be the first to write up the outrage coherently too. much thanks to the illustrious @self

Mistral isn’t trained on copy righted data. It’s based off selective databases that were open use. This article in general is full of false information. But I suppose most people only read the headlines.

https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-7B-v0.1/discussions/8#6527a6fca6eaf92e6c26fa59

Unfortunately we’re unable to share details about the training and the datasets (extracted from the open Web) due to the highly competitive nature of the field.

The “open web” is full of copyrighted material.

We had a social contract!

but it’s apache2 sega! tooooootes freebies!

if you’re not gonna read the fucken thing then fuck off.

I did read the thing, then provided an article explaining why detecting copyrighted material / determining if something is written by AI is very inaccurate.

Perhaps take your own advice to “read the fucken thing” next time instead of making yourself look like an idiot. Though I doubt you’ve ever heard of “better to stay silent and let them think you the fool than to speak and remove all doubt”.

Btw, I even recall that Ars specifically covered the company you linked to in a separate article as well. I’d be glad to provide it once you’ve come to your senses and want to discuss things like an adult.

Mistral’s Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct-v0.1 produced copyrighted content on 22% of the prompts.

did you know that a lesser-known side effect of the infinite monkeys approach is that they will produce whole sections of copyright content abso-dupo-lutely by accident? wild, I know! totes coinkeedink!

I’d be glad to provide it once you’ve come to your senses and want to discuss things like an adult

jesus fucking christ you must be a fucking terrible person to work with

I’ve seen toddlers throw more mature tantrums

I’m too old to discuss against bad faith arguments.

Especially with people who won’t read the information I provide them showing their initial information was wrong.

One is a company that has something to sell, the other an article with citations showing why it’s not easy to determine what percentage of a data set is infringing on copyright, or whether exact reproduction via “fishing expedition” prompting is a useful metric to determine if unauthorized copyright was used in training.

The dumbest take though is attacking Mistral of all LLMs, even though it’s on an Apache 2.0 license.

she wrote harry potter with an llm, didn’t she?

you’re conflating “detecting ai text” with “detecting an ai trained on copyrighted material”

send the relevant article or shut up

Ignoring the logical inconsistency you just spouted for a moment (can’t tell if it’s written by AI but knows it used copyrighted material? Do you not hear yourself?), you do realize Mistral is released under the Apache 2.0 license, a highly permissive scheme that has no restrictions on use or reproduction beyond attribution, right?

I think it’s clear you’re arguing in bad faith however with no intention of changing your misinformed opinion at this point. Perhaps you’d enjoy an echo chamber like the “fuckai” Lemmy instance.

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here’s the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

Proton Mail goes AI, security-focused userbase goes ‘what on earth’(pivot-to-ai.com)

TechTakes

!techtakes@awful.systems

Community stats

Community moderators