lily33

@lily33@lemm.ee

This is a remote user, information on this page may be incomplete. View at Source ↗

⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Albania declares one-year TikTok ban over stabbing⁩ ⁨⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩:
Now, if only the article explained how that killing was related to TikTok. The only relevant thing I saw was,

had its roots in a confrontation on social media.

It’s says “social media”, not “TokTok” though.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨this is canon penis lore⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago⁩:
Why are you surprised? They are called cock-roaches, after all…
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨US lawyers will reportedly try to force Google to sell Chrome and unbundle Android⁩ ⁨⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago⁩:
Yes, almost like they have intentionally waited until Trump’s election.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨The 'bias machine': Undecided voters in the US who turn to Google may see dramatically different views of the world – even when they're asking the exact same question⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

Type in "Is Kamala Harris a good Democratic candidate

and any good search engine will find results containing keywords such as “Kamala Hareris”, “Democratic”, “candidate”, and “good”.

[…] you might ask if she’s a “bad” Democratic candidate instead

In that case, of course the search engine will find results containing keywords such as “Kamala Hareris”, “Democratic”, “candidate”, and “bad”.

So the whole premise that, “Fundamentally, that’s an identical question” is just bullshit when it comes to searching. Obviously, when you put in the keyword “good”, you’ll find articles containing “good”, and if you put in the keyword “bad”, you’ll find articles containing “bad” instead.

Google will find things that match the keywords that you put in. So does DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Yahoo, whatever. That is what a good search engine is supposed to do.

I can assure you, when a search engines stop doing that, and try to give “balanced” results, according to whatever opaque criteria for “balanced” their company comes up with, that will be a nightmare scenario.

I don’t like Google, and only use google when other search engines fail. But this article is BS.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Not likely to be AI-generated or Deepfake⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:
Such a cute kitty snail! Can you post just the picture?
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨[deleted]⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago⁩:

In TikTok or instagram reels, you don’t follow people you like. You just watch stuff happening.

That’s actually the whole point of TikTok, what made it different. An app for short videos where you follow people you like is more of a Snapchat competitor, not TikTok.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Eric Schmidt: ‘We’re not going to hit the climate goals. I’d rather bet on AI solving the problem.’ With "alien intelligence"!⁩ ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
If we wait for AI to be advanced enough to solve the problem, when the time finally comes, the AI will (then, rightfully) determine that there’s only one way to solve it…
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Spotify Premium User Slams App Over Audiobook Feature⁩ ⁨⁨6⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
15 hours for what period of time? The article mentions they’d refill in two days…
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:

skeptical that it’s technologically feasible to search through the entire training corpus, which is an absolutely enormous amount of data

Google, DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc. do it all the time.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
The infraction should be in what’s generated. Because the interest by itself also enables many legitimate, non-infracting uses - which don’t involve generating creative work at all - or where the creative input comes from the user.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
I didn’t say anything about AIs being humans.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
But AI isn’t all about generating creative works. It’s a store of information that I can query - a bit like searching Google; but understands semantics, and is interactive. It can translate my own text for me - in which case all the creativity comes from me, and I use it just for its knowledge of language. Many people use it to generate boilerplate code, which is pretty generic and wouldn’t usually be subject to copyright.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨OpenAI says it’s “impossible” to create useful AI models without copyrighted material⁩ ⁨⁨11⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩:
1. This is not REALLY about copyright - this is an attack on free and open AI models, which would be IMPOSSIBLE if copyright was extended to cover the case of using the works for training.
2. It’s not stealing. There is literally no resemblance between the training works and the model. IP rights have been continuously strengthened due to lobbying over the last century and are already absurdly strong, I don’t understand why people on here want so much to strengthen them ever further.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Threads?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:
threads.net is currently blocked. You can see a complete list of blocked instances here. There was a discussion about this when threads first announced plans to federate.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨lemm.ee plans for mitigating image upload abuse⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:
From the OP, it seems the filters don’t flag CSAM. They flag any NSFW. That said, keep in mind that the filter would also have false negatives, so if people want to slip NSFW though, some can end up there even without such option.

But I don’t mind the content staying hidden until a mod reviewed is in such cases. The false positive rate of the filter would likely be small, so there wouldn’t be too many things that need review.
⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨lemm.ee plans for mitigating image upload abuse⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:
A way to deal with false positives of an ML NSFW scanner would be: Once per day, each user can “overwrite” the scanner. If a user is caught abusing this, they get banned.