Maven, a new social network backed by OpenAI's Sam Altman, found itself in a controversy today when it imported a huge amount of posts and profiles from the Fediverse, and then ran AI analysis to alter the content.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago (5 children)

People can complain, but the Fediverse is built to make consuming user’s data easy. If you don’t want AI using your data, don’t put it on such an easily “scrapable” network.

[–] el_bhm@lemm.ee 47 points 5 months ago (5 children)

Yeah, and girls dress for rape. They are just aaasking for it!

I will go off on a tangent.

Just because something is online it does not mean I give a full green light on anything.

Fuck this noise of social parasitic networks hammering free service therefore pay with data into everyone's skull. And everyone posts crap.

It is a billion dollar business. LLMs are extracting millions and will generate more.

You know why? Because worthless shit you post online is not worthless after all.

Yes, you are reading it right. Pay me. Pay us.

Before anyone ridicules this. Yall be defending billion dollar corporations, staffed with millionaires below C-levels.

People should start demanding money from these greedy assholes.

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I don't think they're making a moral argument, but pointing out the reality of the situation as it stands.

This is a problem that can only be fixed through legislation and aggressive enforcement backed by large punitive actions.

Until that happens, it's better to acknowledge and understand the reality of the situation, than to believe that a morally righteous condemnation will somehow unmake that reality.

It sucks. I agree with your philosophical stance, except for the payment for personal data, as I'd prefer a complete opt-out. However, none of that changes where we're at right now.

[–] GlitterInfection@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

A mild copyright violation based on a system designed around the constant distribution of copies of things is NOT a parable about sexual violence, people.

I feel like this extremely insensitive rape take is the fediverse's version of the Godwin Law.

[–] Makeshift@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

ITT people not recognizing that there’s a difference between comparing and equating.

People, it’s possible to make analogies to more serious situations without saying the two things are equal. The statement above is saying it’s there’s a shared mentality, not a shared level of consequence/seriousness.

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca -2 points 5 months ago

You're right but...

It's the same with open source products. Companies just take it, make billions off it, give nothing back, will try the embrace, enhance , extinguish tactics, will hide any GPL licensing because of course they would...

It'll happen anyway, and you can't stop it. Like you said, girls dress to rape is bullshit. But if a girl goes in a skimpy bikini in a Bombay bus at 9pm, then you're kind of asking for something. Open source is open for everyone, that is kind of the point, it's the reason why it became so big in the first place, but it WILL be abused because there are always abusers out there

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca -4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Are you seriously co.parong having your shitty Internet comments scrapped by AI to someone actually raping you? Wtf?

[–] bbuez@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago

Alternatively, use a closed ecosystem susceptible to data rot and loss.

Want to contribute to our open source project? Join our discord

Would you want art to be unfindable because scraping for AI image generation happens? It's a solution looking for problems.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 8 points 5 months ago (3 children)

This is what I've been saying the entire time. It sucks, and it's wrong, but the fediverse is built from the ground up as an open sharing platform, where amour data is shared with anyone. It shouldn't be, and it's wrong, but there is nothing to stop anyone from doing it. To change that would alter federation at a core level

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I would rather my content be open to the world for however it wants to use it than owned by a single company that gets to profit off aggregating and selling it.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 4 points 5 months ago

Fully agree. The annoyances of free and open are vastly outweighed by the negatives

[–] tooLikeTheNope@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 months ago

Yeah but doesn't hubzilla (https://hubzilla.org/page/info/discover) applies a privacy layer to how its content it is distributed? The issue then lies also in how the social network gets implemented in function of its purpose, in hubzilla vs lemmy case for instance is a public board vs a social network

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That doesn’t mean it’s licensed to be used in a for profit software.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I've had this argument with other people, but essentially at this point there is no licensing beyond server ownership here, and most servers don't have any licenses defined. Even if they do, then sure they did something wrong... but how would you ever prove it or enforce it? The only way to actually disallow them is to switch from open federation to closed - which goes against what we're trying to build with federation.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

There has been instances before where LLMs gave up clues as to what source it used. When that happens, they can be sued.

Im okay with people using our data for whatever, since it’s all open and it should be. But I rather put a little bit of effort to make for profit use technically illegal. It’s better than nothing.

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 2 points 5 months ago

If it ends up being ruled that training an LLM is fair use so long as the LLM doesn’t reproduce the works it is trained on verbatim, then licensing becomes irrelevant.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Just because our data is accessible doesn’t mean it’s legally licensed to be used by a for profit company. Free doesn’t meant you can do what you want with it, it just means no cost.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don’t disagree. I’m just saying that so long as you’re putting content on this platform, you are powerless to stop any service from using the features of the platform in whatever way they want.

It was built for easy and open consumption of user content by other services.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

Oh yeah for sure. Anything I type here is for the whole world to see and I’m okay with that as long as it’s anonymous.

[–] lambalicious@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

People can complain, but the Fediverse is built to make consuming user’s data easy

Correction: it is built to make consuming users's data not easy, but more human.

WHat you are thinking of is AP, not "Fediverse", and even then that's a stretch.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Correction: it is built to make consuming users's data not easy, but more human.

What does that even mean?

WHat you are thinking of is AP, not "Fediverse", and even then that's a stretch.

Honestly, I think Fediverse is inseparable from AP (or some similar protocol). You can split hairs if you want, but the thing that makes it different from all other social media services is that it allows the content created by users on one service to be imported into a different service.

You can hope and dream that it is only services like Lemmy consuming user content from services like Mastadon, but this same protocol makes it easy for services like ChatGPT to consume the same data.