It’s amazing how easily people seem to forget that machines uses tools its creator provides. You can’t trust AI to be impartial because it never is as it is a collection of multiple choices made by people.
This is such a bore, having this same conversation over and over. Same thing happened with NFTs and whatever is currently at the height of its tech hype cycle. Don’t buy into the hype and realize both AIs potential and shortcomings.
I do agree that technical mistakes are interesting but with AI the answer seems to always be creator bias. Whether it’s incomplete training sets or (one-sidedly) moderated results, it doesn’t really matter. It pushes the narrative to certain direction, and people trust AIs to be impartial because they presume it’s just a machine that interprets reality when it never is.
WhatsApp’s AI shows gun-wielding children when prompted with ‘Palestine’
By contrast, prompts for ‘Israeli’ do not generate images of people wielding guns, even in response to a prompt for ‘Israel army’
So what reality is this model reflecting then?
Why does it matter what the excuse is?
You shouldn’t get a stereotype (or in this case I suppose propaganda?) when you give a neutral prompt.
Never has the word “alleged” felt so meaningless.
Since Spotify can’t even make a shuffle that works, I don’t see how AI playlists would be any good either.
Are you talking generally about emoji reactions or just when it comes to email?
So it’s the same story for Android?
It’s what. A book, maybe book and a half per month? Like cool that it’s an option but it’s not really something makes a difference for me.
Well it’s the same as with any document, digital or physical, that shows ownership. Obviously it being NFT wouldn’t make it magically legit, same as with anything else.
But like I said I don’t really see a point of that kind database being blockchain/NFT based anyway.
Tying NFT token to a physical object like a painting and keeping a database of who owns what seems potentially interesting. But why would you need it to be NFT based either, I don’t know.
One question I have is that if two people use the same prompt, do they get the same result?
If they do, how could that result be copyrighted because I can just as well reproduce the prompt, making an original “copy”.
If they don’t produce the same result, well it’s not the human that’s really doing the “original” part there, which is what copyright aims to protect, right?
On the other hand if I write an original comic book story and use AI as a tool to create the pictures, that, in my opinion, could be worth copyright protection. But it’s the same as just original story, it’s not really the pictures that are protected.
(And let’s not forget that AIs are mostly just fed stolen works, that needs to be solved first and foremost.)
Could you describe a case example how that applies in practice?
Because yeah I understand that when we all have our own copy of the data someone can’t falsify all our independent copies but is data being tampered like that even the problem?
I don’t like your idea because it defeats the purpose of picking an instance (and you could just run your own if you want to be in control) but yeah that was uncalled for. If this is the attitude of the instance maybe they should just defed. (If restricting posting isn’t possible.)
I don’t know what kind of platform would make it impossible to not host csam. Text only, without linking?
Or is the problem here that the post was available to the wider audience, so other than moderation front was able to see it? Lemmy doesn’t do restricted posting? Jesus this platform is at its infancy then.
Wasn’t there a same kind of story out of Japan years ago? Murdered someone during their time Europe?