An update to Google’s privacy policy suggests that the entire public internet is fair game for it’s AI projects. If Google can read your words, assume they belong to the company now, and expect that they’re nesting somewhere in the bowels of a chatbot.

    • MoogleMaestro@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      All for me and none for you

      The classic motto of a company that’s simply too big and is asking to be broken up.

    • fuzzzerd@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the ugly truth. There’s plenty of reasons to be upset with Google, but this ain’t it.

  • sp1z@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not sure how they can enforce their terms and conditions on me when I don’t use any of their services?

    • BarbecueCowboy@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not a TOC, you don’t have to agree to it. They’re just kind of telling you what they feel like they can get away with. I don’t see anywhere in the new terms where they outright assert that they own it though, but they just kinda say “Yo, if we can see it, we’re going to use it to train AI”.

      • Pseu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s what Google does with search and advertising, isn’t it? They take everything they can see and use it to make money.

    • 0x1C3B00DA@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      They don’t need to enforce anything, you do. If you post anything onlline, they’ll scrape it. If you have a problem with that, the onus is on you to enforce your copyright (if you have it)

  • Books@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    This has been discussed elsewhere, and by people smarter than I, but chat bots are going to start learning from other chat bots and it’s going to be less and less reliable over time, no?

    Like there is an internet BEFORE ChatGPT, which is about as reliable of data as one could hope to find, and then there is a post day one chatgpt, which the data is already getting polluted by random LLM gibberish. How is google’s webscraping going to know if the data it is getting is legitimate human being thoughts, or just random madeup shit from a LLM?

    • green_light_stop@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There was an article recently about this (too lazy to search it). It’s already starting to happen. If most of the content they train on is the internet and more internet content is created by LLMs without being tagged as AI generated content (can’t be guaranteed by all actors), then it’s inevitable. High signal training data is out the window.

      • 50gp@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        likely they would limit training data to only include pre-2020 or earlier to avoid this

        • LostXOR@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then you run into the problem of having outdated information. As more AI generated content pollutes the internet and more time passes the problem will only become more severe.

    • FlashPossum@social.fossware.space
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are experiments with feeding LLMs output of other LLMs and the results are awful. Seems for now they can only generate sensible text if fed human output.

      • bodiesofeverest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh and they won’t. We had a lengthy verification process where we proved we owned these sites we didn’t want aggregated and they still refused to honor robots.txt.

  • Hellsadvocate@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    And yet somehow, they still have the shittiest AI this side of ChatGPT and Claude. (Source: tested PaLM 2 on Poe, and Bard). Checking out the fine tunings of Llama, it doesn’t seem like more training is always better. You’ll hit a wall. And even tuning seems to be an art at the moment.

  • Prouvaire@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    There has always been a symbiotic relationship between search engines and content site owners. The deal being “l (site owner) will let you index my site to make it easy for people to find my content. In exchange, you (Google) can make money by building user profiles and selling targeted advertising.” Conceptually this is no different, except that Google is now using the data to build new applications and businesses - AI rather than ads.

    I believe that Google does respect robots.txt (though these need to be well specified and located), so it’s relatively easy for site owners to opt out of being indexed. Whether being indexed should be on an opt-out basis (as opposed to opt-in basis) in the first place is perhaps the key question, one I’d argue should have been discussed 20, 30 years ago.

    • 50gp@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      or they could maliciously opt-in by including lots of hidden garbage text to poison the scrapers

  • Kichae@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cool. Cool, cool, cool

    I’m applying the same principle to every corporately owned IP out there, too, then. If I can see it, it’s mine.

  • Big P@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think they belong to the company any more than the words you read belong to you

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly, this reads like hysteria. If you’ve placed your words on a public website, it’s a shocked Pikachu moment when someone (or in the case of an AI-in-training something) reads those words. It’s basic fair use.

      If someone put up a billboard with some text on it and then got angry whenever someone else read it I would question their sanity. Even if that “someone” was the Google street view car.

      • LostXOR@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah, I don’t really see the fuss about people’s content being used to train AIs. It’s not really any different from a human reading your content and using their brain to make something similar.

        • clb92@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          There’s a surprising number of people who seem to think LLMs contain a database of everything it’s trained with, and that it just spits out snippets from there. There are also lots of very vocal artists against image generation models who claim that these 5-10 GB models contain all their copyrighted art, claiming that the models just create collages from existing images.

          People simply don’t understand how these things work.

    • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gmail has scanned your emails, and those sent to you, since the day the service went live. It is part of the Ts and Cs.

  • dbilitated@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    good, I’d like it if AI thinks a bit more like me and a bit less like the rest of the internet