this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
1220 points (95.5% liked)
Fuck AI
2486 readers
1790 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's wrong with what Pleias or AllenAI are doing? Those are using only data on the public domain or suitably licensed, and are not burning tons of watts on the process. They release everything as open source. For real. Public everything. Not the shit that Meta is doing, or the weights-only DeepSeek.
It's incredible seeing this shit over and over, specially in a place like Lemmy, where the people are supposed to be thinking outside the box, and being used to stuff which is less mainstream, like Linux, or, well, the fucking fediverse.
Imagine people saying "yeah, fuck operating systems and software" because their only experience has been Microsoft Windows. Yes, those companies/NGOs are not making the rounds on the news much, but they exist, the same way that Linux existed 20 years ago, and it was our daily driver.
Do I hate OpenAI? Heck, yeah, of course I do. And the other big companies that are doing horrible things with AI. But I don't hate all in AI because I happen to not be an ignorant that sees only the 99% of it.
AllenAi has datasets based on
GitHub, reddit, Wikipedia and "web pages".
I wouldn't call any of them ethically sourced.
"Webpages" as it is vague as fuck and makes me question if they requested consent of the creators.
"Gutenberg project" is the funniest tho.
Writing GitHub, reddit and Wikipedia, tells be very clearly that they didn't. They might asked the providers but that is not the creator. Whether or not the provider have a license for the data is irrelevant on a moral ground unless it was an opt-in for the creator. Also it has to be clearly communicated. Giving consent is not "not saying no", it is a yes. Uninformed consent is not consent.
When someone post on Reddit in 2005 and forgot their password, they can't delete their content from it. They didn't post it with the knowledge that it will be used for ai training. They didn't consent to it.
Gutenberg project... Dead author didn't consent to their work being used to destroy a profession that they clearly loved.
So I bothered to check out 1 dataset of the names that you dropped and it was unethical. I don't understand why people don't get it.
What is wrong? That you think that they are ethical when the first dataset that I look at, already isn't.
We generally had the reasonable rule that property ends at dead. Intellectual property extending beyond the grave is corporatist 21st century bullshit. In the past all writing got quickly into the public domain like it should. Depending on country within in at least 25 years of the publishing date to the authors dead. Project Gutenberg reflects the law and reasonable practice to allow writing to go into the public domain.
Good focus on 1 point, sadly bad point to focus on.
What is lawful and legal, is not what is moral.
The Holocaust was legal.
Try again. Let's start. Should the invention of ai have an influence on how we treat data? Is there a difference between reproducing a work after the author's death and using possible millennia of public domain data to destroy the economical validity of a profession? If there is, should public domain law consider that? Has the general public discuss these points and come to a consensus? Has that consensus been put in law?
No? Sounds like the law is not up to date to the tech. So not only is legal not Moral, legal isn't up to date.
You understand the point of public domain, right? You understand that even if you were right (you aren't), that it would resolve the other issues, right?
Yes. We should never have been idiotic with patents and other forms of gatekeeping information. Information is always free and all forms of controlling it is folly
Then don't gatekeep e.g. your naked body and your loved one's secrets! Information should always be fee and all forms of controlling it is folly! Do it. While you are at it, your, and your family's, full name and place of employment please. Thanks!
Oh wait, you don't want to do that right? Some information is private. You have some rights on some information. Ok then let's talk about it.
Not what we are talking about. But you know that. Do you want to explain how to police public information without it being folly?
We are talking about access to information and you said that it should be granted to everyone without any limitations. How are we not talking about that information?
Unless you are to finally admit that there is different kind of information and different rules that we apply to them, We are talking about your nudes too.
When you finally admit that, then we can have a discussion about what rules we apply to information. Then we can talk about "public information". Until then, I don't know what to tell you.
I work with ip and still think it is folly. Idk why you spam about private information, that's not what anyone was asking or discussing about
You talked about information. Not public, not private, information.
Your responses heavily imply that you think public and private information should be treated differently, but you keep talking about how information should be free and open. So you are willing and believing that there are rules. So why shouldn't public information be public information while not being allowed to use for e.g. ai without permission? You can allow copying and modifying of information without allowing e.g. it being used for ai training. You can make that rule, just like you can different rules for private information than for public information.
I really don't understand what you don't understand.
Put it out and it's public. At that point it is folly to regulate. If personal information is taken and spread, the culprit has committed a crime but in my opinion the rest is folly. I thought it was obvious so I omitted the intensely self explanatory details
Oh so it is a crime! So you totally could make it illegal to use public information to train ai without consent. Making it really difficult to collect billions in funding. Thanks for the admission.
I don't know where you got that image from. AllenAI has many models, and the ones I'm looking at are not using those datasets at all.
Anyway, your comments are quite telling.
First, you pasted an image without alternative text, which it's harmful for accessibility (a topic in which this kind of models can help, BTW, and it's one of the obvious no-brainer uses in which they help society).
Second, you think that you need consent for using works in the public domain. You are presenting the most dystopic view of copyright that I can think of.
Even with copyright in full force, there is fair use. I don't need your consent to feed your comment into a text to speech model, an automated translator, a spam classifier, or one of the many models that exist and that serve a legitimate purpose. The very image that you posted has very likely been fed into a classifier to discard that it's CSAM.
And third, the fact that you think that a simple deep learning model can do so much is, ironically, something that you share with the AI bros that think the shit that OpenAI is cooking will do so much. It won't. The legitimate uses of this stuff, so far, are relevant, but quite less impactful than what you claimed. The "all you need is scale" people are scammers, and deserve all the hate and regulation, but you can't get past those and see that the good stuff exists, and doesn't get the press it deserves.
https://allenai.org/dolma then you scroll down to "read dolma paper" and then click on it. This sends you to this site. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Dolma%3A-an-Open-Corpus-of-Three-Trillion-Tokens-for-Soldaini-Kinney/ad1bb59e3e18a0dd8503c3961d6074f162baf710
I want to address your statement about my telling behavior. Sorry, you are right. I am sorry for the screen reader crowd. You all probably know that alt text could be misleading and that someone says that in the internet, isn't a reliable source. So i hope you can forgive me as you did your own simple research into AllenAi anyway.
Lemmy is just an opensource reddit, with all the pros and cons
It's such a strange take, too. Like why do we have to include AI in our box if we fucking hate it?