FaceDeer

I’m sure it would be relatively straightforward to create a client that randomly blocks 90% of the content to simulate a smaller system.

I remember doing something like this with the OG ChatGPT around when it first came out to the public, I gave it a bunch of jokes to explain to see how well it did. I wasn’t particularly rigorous but I remember noticing that it did pretty well with puns and wordplay, and often when it didn’t “get” a joke it would assume it was an obscure pun or wordplay joke and make up an explanation along those lines. I figured that made sense given it was a large language model, its sense of humor would naturally be language-based.

Ah, mainstreaming. I have no particular opinion about PewDiePie himself but it’s nice to see.

Ah, nice. I sent him some funds on Koffee back in the kbin days, and I don’t think it was wasted. kbin lived on as mbin.

Quite so. Sorry, I interpreted your “how” in the “I don’t understand, how can you find this fun? I’m only here because Microsoft has my family hostage and are making me post in exchange for their freedom” sense.

I read about neat things and I write about neat things. Sometimes people are wrong on the Internet and I get to fix that.

If it’s not fun for you then you don’t have to.

It’s fun.

And the AIs themselves can generate data. There have been a few recent news stories about AIs doing novel research, that will only become more prevalent over time.

Only disappointing thing is they can still see and respond to my posts, just that I can’t see it. I wish they couldn’t see anything I posted either.

I’ve seen this view in discussions of blocking before and it really bugs me. You’re desiring to unilaterally control what I can see and do on the Fediverse.

This is how it works on Reddit and it’s a terrible mechanism. It means you can preemptively ensure that anyone who might refute misinformation will be excluded from your threads before you post them. It means you can step into a conversation I’m having with someone, derail it, and then prevent me from responding to your derail. Over on Reddit by far the most common use I see of the block tool is to get the “last word” in on whatever argument is going on, posting some sort of seemingly clever comeback and then instantly blocking me before I can point out the flaws.

For anyone wondering how the blocking feature has been weaponized to spread misinformation, in 2022 a redditor did an experiment: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheoryOfReddit/comments/sdcsx3/testing_reddits_new_block_feature_and_its_effects/

I don’t see why not, but I haven’t really been looking at the origins of particular posts.

Mbin supports both Lemmy and Mastodon. Though I have no interest in Mastodon’s “microblogging”/Twitter-like format so I’ve never investigated that, despite being on an mbin instance myself.

No, that’s what the common prejudices about the popular whipping boy of the moment says.

1 year + 1 day later: turns out all instances are running on non-American servers.

I, too, started out on kbin and ended up migrating to an mbin instance. I sent Ernest some money via that Koffi thing he had and I don’t regret it - I hope he found the funds useful, whatever it is that happened to him in the end. He kicked off an alternative to Lemmy and that’s super important for a distributed decentralized system like the Fediverse, you can’t have just one client for it.

He’s doing it in an attempt to “sabotage” AI training.

It’s also a useful flag to indicate that he doesn’t understand how AIs are trained.

What’s not what we expected?

There are some lawsuits in motion about this and the early signs are that it is indeed legal. For example, in Kadrey et al v. Meta the judge issued a summary judgment that training an AI on books was “highly transformative” and fell under fair use, and similarly in Bartz, Graeber and Johnson v. Anthropic the judge ruled that training an AI on books was fair use. I always expected this would be the case since an AI model does not literally contain the training material it was trained on, it learns patterns from the training material but that’s not the same as the literal expression of the training material. Since the training material isn’t being copied there’s nothing for copyright to restrict here.

Assuming you know which instances are the ones they’re collecting data from. It could be any instance.

Case law is still pretty young in this area, but it’s looking like there’s nothing actually against copyright about the training of AI on copyrighted content. It’s not something that a license can restrict because the trainers can simply reject the license and carry on training under the basics of what the law allows them to do anyway.

Open source licenses only have power because they grant permissions that people normally wouldn’t have and put conditions on those permissions. If you don’t need those permissions then you don’t have to be bound by those conditions.

I don’t see why everyone’s surprised about this. The Fediverse is running on ActivityPub, an open protocol whose purpose is to broadcast the content we post here to anyone who wants it. Of course it’s being used to train AI, why wouldn’t it?