admin
Hey, you do you. I just want to give you the feedback that when you repeatedly post something as blatant as a full page screenshot, it really stands out, especially on mobile. It might give off some fanatical vibes (in the original sense of the word).
Do with that what you will.
You sure like posting that screenshot, don't you?
The world wide web is more than social media.
Why?
Once this passes, OpenAI can't build ChatGPT on the same ("stolen") dataset. How does that cement their position?
Taking someone's creation (without their permission) and turning it into a commercial venture, without giving payment or even attribution is immoral.
If a creator (in the widest meaning of the word) is fine with their works being used as such - great, go ahead. But otherwise you'll just have to wait before the work becomes public domain (which obviously does not mean publicly available).
I don't think so either, but to me that is the purpose.
Somewhere between small time personal-use ML and commercial exploitation, there should be ethical sourcing of input data, rather than the current method of "scrape all you can find, fuck copyright" that OpenAI & co are getting away with.
I think you'll get to hold on to that feeling.
Good find, that explains.
That the person who reported it used a ML to try and find the setting to attempt to solve it, did not fill me with confidence of their abilities to manage this. They later admitted that they did have it enabled in some form.
They also never became specific about how well Gemini interpreted their tax result file. Did it give the proper number verbatim? That's pretty damming. Did it just reply "You're not getting a tax return"? That's just 50/50 odds.
Weird. The original article says "accused", but on Lemmy they're already found guilty.
Err...what's the point of this 6 year old article, OP? Are there any specific issues about it that make it relevant now or that you wish to discuss? If so, if would help if you'd put them in the post.