I don’t know who this guy is, but I’m with at least on this.
He’s a weird guy.
Makes a website sourcing screenshots from games for UI inspiration.
Sources UI art from Twitter with a bunch of contributors.
Has a boyfriend.
Active on Twitter, a site where you can “Heil Hitler” but you get blocked by saying Cis.
It seems we’ve come full circle with “copying is not theft”… I have to admit I’m really not against the technology in general, but the people who are currently in control of it are all just the absolute worst people who are the least deserving of control over such a thing.
Is it hypocritical to think there should be rules for corporations that dont apply to real people? Like why is it the other way around and I can go to jail or get a fine for sharing the wrong files but some company does it and they just say its for the “common good” and they “couldnt make money if they had to follow the laws” and they get a fucking pass?
Yeah, I’ve been a pirate for so long I have zero moral grounds to be against using copyrighted stuff for free…
Except I’m not burning a small nations’ worth of energy to download a NoFX album and I’m not recreating that album and selling it to people when they ask for a copy of Heavy Petting Zoo (I’m just giving them the real songs). So, moral high ground regained?
ITT: People who didn’t check the community name
Then there’s always that one guy who’s like “what about memes?”
MSpaint memes are waaaaay funnier than Ai memes, if only due to being a little bit ass.
Ass is the most important thing in a meme
EDIT: I feel like I could have written this better but I will stand by it nonetheless
Plus it let people with…let’s say no creative ability to speak of to be nice about it…make memes.
Some many in these comments are like “what about the ethical source data ones?”
Which ones? Name one.
None of the big ones are. Wtf is ethically sourced? E.g. Ebay wants to collect data for ai shit. My mom has an account, and she could opt out of them using her data but when I told her about it, she told me that she didn’t understand. And she moved on. She just didn’t understand what the fuck they are doing and why she might should care. But I guess it is “ethically” sourced as they kinda asked by making it opt out, I guess.
That surely is very ethical and you can not critic it for it… As we all know, an 50yo adult fucking a 14yo would also be totally cool as long as the 14yo doesn’t say no. Right? That is how our moral compass work. /S
Fucking disgusting. All of you tech bro complain about people not getting ai or tech in general and then talk about ethically sourced data. I spit on you.
I love IT, I work in it and I live it, but I have morals and you could too
Edit: after a bunch of messages telling me that I am wrong. I wonder when they will realize that they are making my point. I am saying that it isn’t ethically sourced without consent and uninformed consent isn’t consent. And they are tell me, an it professional with an interest in how machine learning functions ever since alphago and 7 years before the ai hype, that I don’t understand it. If I don’t understand it, what makes you believe the general public understands and can consent to it. If I am wrong about ai, I am wrong about ai but I am not wrong about the unethical nature of that data, people don’t understand it.
I don’t mean to “um achtually” you or diminish the point you’re making, but I would like to highlight one example of an ethnically trained AI.
Voice Swap pay artist to come in and record data for training, the artist then get royalties any time someone uses their voice. I discovered it through Benn Jordan’s video about poising music track from AI training.
Yeah, except royalties in music are almost always a joke. Those artists are going to make much less off their AI voice than if they actually appeared in studio and the end product is going to be worse. If AI cost the same or more, there would be no market for it. Relevant story about Hollywood actors who sold AI likenesses.
Even if it was actually “ethically trained”, the end result is still horrible.
Also, paying to have an AI Snoop Dogg in your song is the lamest shit I’ve ever heard.
“It’s shit” is different from “it’s unethical”.
If people want to pay for shit, let them pay for shit. They can’t make me listen.
That AI was trained on absolute mountains of data that wasn’t ethically gained, though.
Just because an emerald ring is assembled by a local jeweler doesn’t mean the diamond didn’t come from slave labor in South Africa.
Voice Swap was not trained on any data that wasn’t “ethically gained.”
Read the bottom of their FAQ that lists the exact databases in question.
The couple of datasets they used on top of all the data they directly pay artists to consensually provide have permissive licenses that only require attribution for use, and gathered their information directly from a group of willing, consenting participants.
They are quite literally the exception to the rule of companies claiming they’re ethical, then using non-ethically sourced data as a base for their models.
Mozilla’s Common Voice seems pretty cool, but I’m not sure if that counts.
It’s fun to record the clips.
I’ve contributed to labeling and scoring some of the Common Voice data before. Definitely a fun little thing to do when you have some free time.
I was also pretty happy when I saw Open Assistant making a fully public, consensually contributed to database for text models, but they unfortunately shut down, and in the end there was only really enough data to fine-tune models rather than creating one from scratch.
What the fuck data collected could ebay use to train AI? The fact people buy star trek figurines??
Thanks for making my point. People don’t understand and therefore can’t consent and therefore it isn’t ethically sourced data.
Mate, supercilious comments like this also do not help. They make you look a raging boy crying wolf.
“Ah yes someone expressed incredility at the viability of the business practice in this instance. I must tell them they are the problem.”
I mean you had a chance to point out the issues in depth handed to you on a fuckin’ plate but instead you chose to jam your head up your own butt.
Which ones? Name one.
What’s wrong with what Pleias or AllenAI are doing? Those are using only data on the public domain or suitably licensed, and are not burning tons of watts on the process. They release everything as open source. For real. Public everything. Not the shit that Meta is doing, or the weights-only DeepSeek.
It’s incredible seeing this shit over and over, specially in a place like Lemmy, where the people are supposed to be thinking outside the box, and being used to stuff which is less mainstream, like Linux, or, well, the fucking fediverse.
Imagine people saying “yeah, fuck operating systems and software” because their only experience has been Microsoft Windows. Yes, those companies/NGOs are not making the rounds on the news much, but they exist, the same way that Linux existed 20 years ago, and it was our daily driver.
Do I hate OpenAI? Heck, yeah, of course I do. And the other big companies that are doing horrible things with AI. But I don’t hate all in AI because I happen to not be an ignorant that sees only the 99% of it.
AllenAi has datasets based on
GitHub, reddit, Wikipedia and “web pages”.
I wouldn’t call any of them ethically sourced.
“Webpages” as it is vague as fuck and makes me question if they requested consent of the creators.
“Gutenberg project” is the funniest tho.
Writing GitHub, reddit and Wikipedia, tells be very clearly that they didn’t. They might asked the providers but that is not the creator. Whether or not the provider have a license for the data is irrelevant on a moral ground unless it was an opt-in for the creator. Also it has to be clearly communicated. Giving consent is not “not saying no”, it is a yes. Uninformed consent is not consent.
When someone post on Reddit in 2005 and forgot their password, they can’t delete their content from it. They didn’t post it with the knowledge that it will be used for ai training. They didn’t consent to it.
Gutenberg project… Dead author didn’t consent to their work being used to destroy a profession that they clearly loved.
So I bothered to check out 1 dataset of the names that you dropped and it was unethical. I don’t understand why people don’t get it.
What is wrong? That you think that they are ethical when the first dataset that I look at, already isn’t.
We generally had the reasonable rule that property ends at dead. Intellectual property extending beyond the grave is corporatist 21st century bullshit. In the past all writing got quickly into the public domain like it should. Depending on country within in at least 25 years of the publishing date to the authors dead. Project Gutenberg reflects the law and reasonable practice to allow writing to go into the public domain.
I don’t know where you got that image from. AllenAI has many models, and the ones I’m looking at are not using those datasets at all.
Anyway, your comments are quite telling.
First, you pasted an image without alternative text, which it’s harmful for accessibility (a topic in which this kind of models can help, BTW, and it’s one of the obvious no-brainer uses in which they help society).
Second, you think that you need consent for using works in the public domain. You are presenting the most dystopic view of copyright that I can think of.
Even with copyright in full force, there is fair use. I don’t need your consent to feed your comment into a text to speech model, an automated translator, a spam classifier, or one of the many models that exist and that serve a legitimate purpose. The very image that you posted has very likely been fed into a classifier to discard that it’s CSAM.
And third, the fact that you think that a simple deep learning model can do so much is, ironically, something that you share with the AI bros that think the shit that OpenAI is cooking will do so much. It won’t. The legitimate uses of this stuff, so far, are relevant, but quite less impactful than what you claimed. The “all you need is scale” people are scammers, and deserve all the hate and regulation, but you can’t get past those and see that the good stuff exists, and doesn’t get the press it deserves.
It’s incredible seeing this shit over and over, specially in a place like Lemmy, where the people are supposed to be thinking outside the box, and being used to stuff which is less mainstream, like Linux, or, well, the fucking fediverse.
Lemmy is just an opensource reddit, with all the pros and cons
Ethical small data: https://youtu.be/eDr6_cMtfdA
One ethical AI usage I’ve heard was a few artists who take an untrained bot and train it on only their own artwork
What’s an “untrained bot”? Did they code it from scratch themselves? I find it almost impossible to believe it wasn’t just a fork of an existing, unethical project but I’d love more detail
But I guess it is “ethically” sourced as they kinda asked by making it opt out, I guess.
No.
As your mother’s case shows, making it “opt out” is emphatically not the ethical choice. It is the grifter’s choice because it comes invariably paired with difficult-to-find settings and explanations that sound like they come from a law book as dictated by someone simultaneously drunk and tripping balls.
The only ethical option is “opt in”. This means people give informed consent (or if they don’t bother to read and just click OK at least they get consented hard like they deserve). This means you have to persuade that the choice is good for them and not just for the service provider.
TL;DR: Opt-in is the way you do things without icky “I don’t understand consent” vibes.
Did you read the whole comment? You understand that I was sarcastic and I followed it by be hinting at the idea that “she didn’t say no” is not considered consent in e.g. sexual encounters, raising the question why would it be here?
So we agree. You just misunderstood my comment.
