this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2024
313 points (92.2% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3195 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
313
To buy no longer means anything :( (youtu.be)
submitted 8 months ago by matmarspace@programming.dev to c/technology@lemmy.world
102 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I’ve just watched the video. I find it pretty outrageous. The word about it should spread.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies? Implying that they weren't before?

Being more specific is not the same as changing something from illegal to legal.

[–] rutellthesinful@kbin.social 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

the update to the legal contract they have you agree to was in no way legally motivated?

[–] otp@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

CYA is not necessarily the same as changing the substance.

LLMs were a big paradigm shift. They're not necessarily something that could've been imagined when writing the original TOSs

[–] rutellthesinful@kbin.social 0 points 8 months ago

CYA is not necessarily the same as changing the substance

why would they need to cover themselves against the scenario you're arguing they were already covering themselves against?

that could’ve been imagined when writing the original TOSs

or when agreeing to them, which is literally the problem here

you can't meaningfully consent to every arbitrary hypothetical future scenario