admin

Nope, that's not what I'm arguing at all. I was just pointing out how the commenter above me was misrepresenting the judges reasoning.

Obviously people should get angry over this. But I do not have enough faith in social media to believe that anger will find a healthy outlet if left unmanaged.

But if you are asking for my opinion - I think the woman should be allowed to tell her story, as long as she doesn't encourage naming the perpetrators or does so herself. And, given the circumstances / if possible, disable public comments and reposting to discourage further harassment.

They're not taking it offline because they're denying those kids were bullies, but because they are now harassed themselves, but by the entire Internet.

Obviously the kids responsible for the suicide should face consequences for their actions. But mob justice isn't going to fix anything, except for letting a new round of bullies feel good about themselves.

Can you imagine the damage of one careless keyboard warrior digging up the wrong personal info, and then tend of thousands people harassing them? How many wrongs does it take to make a right?

So does that include running or even building/tuning a model yourself, or just sending money to a saas for api calls? The former would still be kinda interesting. The latter... That's just stupid AND boring.

As you can tell - basically deduced from context. I've never really seen the term zionist outside of xenofobic rants, so that's all I had to go on.

This is an economic editorial, not tech news though.

No.

Because it invokes a strong emotion, and that's what drives (social) media engagement.

And that's the third time you've tried to put words into my mouth, rather than arguing my points directly.

Have fun battling your straw men, I'm out.

you're wanting to give people the right to control other people's ability to analyze the things that they see on public display.

For the second time, that's not what I want to do - I pretty much said so explicitly with my example.

Human studying a piece of content - fine.
Training a Machine Learning model on that content without the creator's permission - not fine.

But if you honestly think that a human learning something, and a ML model learning something are exactly the same, and should be treated as such, this conversation is pointless.

No, Just the concept of getting a say in who can train AIs on your creations.

So yes, that would leave room for a loophole where a human could recreate your creation (without just making a copy), and they could then train their model on that. It isn't water tight. But it doesn't need to be, just better than what we have now.

Agreed. It was fun as a thought exercise, but this failure was inevitable from the start. Ironically, the existence and usage of such tools will only hasten their obsolescence.

The only thing that would really help is GDPR-like fines (based as a percentage of income, not profits), for any company that trains or willingly uses models that have been trained on data without explicit consent from its creator.