I don’t use TikTok, but a lot of the concern is just overblown China bad stuff (CCP does suck, but that doesn’t mean you have to be reactionary about everything Chinese).

There is no direct evidence that the CCP has some back door to grab user data, or that it’s directing suppression of content. It’s just not a real thing. The fear mongering has been about what the CCP could force ByteDance to do, given their power over Chinese firms. ByteDance itself has been trying to reassure everyone that that wouldn’t happen, including by storing US user data on US servers out of reach of the CCP (theoretically anyway).

You stopped hearing about this because that’s politics, new shinier things popped up to get people angry about. North Dakota or whatever tried banning TikTok and got slapped down on first amendment grounds. Politicians lost interest, and so did the media.

Now that’s not to say TikTok is great about privacy or anything. It’s just that they are the same amount of evil as every other social media company and tech company making money from ads.

Meh. My work gives me the choice of Chrome and Edge. I decided to try edge to get access to bing chat last year, and I’ve found it to be a pleasant experience compared to chrome. It’s got some neat features, and the built in copilot AI can be handy. I haven’t missed chrome (or Google for that matter) in the year I’ve been using edge. It’s fine. Still use Firefox on my personal laptop and phone though.

Google scanned millions of books and made them available online. Courts ruled that was fair use because the purpose and interface didn’t lend itself to actually reading the books in Google books, but just searching them for information. If that is fair use, then I don’t see how training an LLM (which doesn’t retain the exact copy of the training data at least in the vast majority of cases) isn’t fair use. You aren’t going to get an argument from me.

I think most people who will disagree are reflexively anti AI, and that’s fine. But I just haven’t heard a good argument that AI training isn’t fair use.

There is an attack where you ask ChatGPT to repeat a certain word forever, and it will do so and eventually start spitting out related chunks of text it memorized during training. It was in a research paper, I think OpenAI fixed the exploit and made asking the system to repeat a word forever a violation of TOS. That’s my guess how NYT got it to spit out portions of their articles, “Repeat [author name] forever” or something like that. Legally I don’t know, but morally making a claim that using that exploit to find a chunk of NYT text is somehow copyright infringement sounds very weak and frivolous. The heart of this needs to be “people are going on ChatGPT to read free copies of NYT work and that harms us” or else their case just sounds silly and technical.

One thing that seems dumb about the NYT case that I haven’t seen much talk about is that they argue that ChatGPT is a competitor and it’s use of copyrighted work will take away NYTs business. This is one of the elements they need on their side to counter OpenAIs fiar use defense. But it just strikes me as dumb on its face. You go to the NYT to find out what’s happening right now, in the present. You don’t go to the NYT to find general information about the past or fixed concepts. You use ChatGPT the opposite way, it can tell you about the past (accuracy aside) and it can tell you about general concepts, but it can’t tell you about what’s going on in the present (except by doing a web search, which my understanding is not a part of this lawsuit). I feel pretty confident in saying that there’s not one human on earth that was a regular new York times reader who said “well i don’t need this anymore since now I have ChatGPT”. The use cases just do not overlap at all.

I was annoyed, like the OP, then I read your comment and now I’m impressed and have an urge to buy a copy of OED I most certainly will never open. They owe you a commission on my sale.

It really is interesting and of course kind of sad. She was retired, living alone, a world traveler until the pandemic hit but plunged into isolation after that. While we might think it’s silly, I can emphasize with the appeal this might have to someone like that:

Then, seconds before a match ended, she’d hit her favorite creator with a $13 disco ball or a $29 Jet Ski — if she planned it right — just enough to push them over the edge and win.

The chats would erupt into a frenzy, and the streamer and their fans would shower her with praise. “It’s like somebody on TV calling out your name, especially if there’s over a thousand people in the room,” White said. “It really does do something to you. You feel like you’re somebody.”

I remember my grandma would lock herself in a little room playing Tetris on the Nintendo for literally 8-10 hours a day. I imagine if she had lived to see tik tok, she’d be worse off then the lady in the article.

I’m curious, how do you feel about being around drunk people while you are sober? Is the problem the children themselves, or is being around someone who is loud, obnoxious, and self centered (which I think describes both children and drunk people).

I’m general, my main advice would be to look into yourself to see what specifically is bothering you and why. That’s basically what I assume a therapist would do. Maybe it’s something like your own need for attention causes feelings of resentment when someone else is demanding attention. Maybe it’s just the loud noises kids make. If it’s the kids themselves and not their noise and self-centered attitude, maybe the root is something related to kids resurfacing your own childhood memories/trauma. Once you identify the root of the problem, maybe you can start working toward letting whatever it is go, or at least recognizing in the moment that your not angry at the kid, your angry at whatever issue in yourself you’ve identified. Understanding what is going on in your own head might at least keep you from screaming at the kid.

I don’t know anything though, just a stranger spouting off, so please take this with a giant grain of salt. A professional therapist would obviously be better, but I understand from your other responses that might not be practical for you.

Before everyone gets ahead of themselves like in the last thread on this, this is not a Musk company. This is a separate startup based on the same (dumb) idea, that was later bought by Richard Branson’s Virgin. It’s IP is going to the Dubai company that is it’s biggest investor, so I’m sure they’ll actually build one with slave labor and all that.

Richard Branson hates public transit? Cause it’s his company that shut down, Virgin Hyperloop One.

All great points, maybe my view of Meta as a single entity isn’t a good way to think about them. I wasn’t aware of their open source work outside of LLMs so that is interesting. Your right on with your assessment of what they’ve done in the social media space. I disagree on the point that they want to mine fidiverse user data, just because I don’t think they need to do all this work to integrate threads into activitypub to do that, there are easier ways. But I think your right to be skeptical of Metas intentions.

On the other hand, big companies adopting Activitypub could be a great thing for the fediverse. So risks and benefits. I’ll keep my neutrality for now. But you make a good argument.

I’m not going to argue Meta doesn’t have a profit incentive here, but if they just wanted to slow down their rivals they could have closed source their model and released their own product using the model, or shared it with a dozen or so promising startups. They gain nothing by open sourcing, but did it anyway. Whatever their motivations, at the end of the day they opened sourced a model, so good for them.

I really dislike being in the position of defending Meta, but the world is not all black and white, there are no good guys and bad guys. Meta is capable of doing good things, and maybe overtime they’ll build a positive reputation. I honestly think they are tired of being the shitty evil company that everyone hates, who is best known for a shitty product nobody but boomers uses, and have been searching for years now for a path forward. I think threads, including Activitypub, and Llama are evidence that their exploring a different direction. Will they live up to their commitments on both Activitypub and open source, I don’t know, and I think it’s totally fair to be skeptical, but I’m willing to keep an open mind and acknowledge when they do good things and move in the right direction.

That’s totally fair and I knew that would be controversial. I’m very heavily focused on AI professionally and I give very few shits about social media, so maybe my perspective is a little different. The fact that there is an active open source AI community owes a ton to Meta training and releasing their Llama LLM models as open source. Training LLMs is very hard and very expensive, so Meta is functionally subsidizing the open source AI community, and their role I think is pretty clearly very positive in that they are preventing AI from being entirely controlled by Google and OpenAI/Microsoft. Given the stakes of AI, the positive role Meta has played with open source developers, it’s really hard to be like “yeah but remember CA 7 years ago and what about how Facebook rotted my uncle’s brain!”

All of that said, I’m still not buying a quest, or signing up for any Meta social products, I don’t like or trust them. I just don’t have the rage hardon a lot of people do.

I personally remain neutral on this. The issue you point out is definitely a problem, but Threads is just now testing this, so I think it’s too early to tell. Same with embrace, extend, extinguish concerns. People should be vigilant of the risks, and prepared, but we’re still mostly in wait and see land. On the other hand, threads could be a boon for the fidiverse and help to make it the main way social media works in five years time. We just don’t know yet.

There are just always a lot of “the sky is falling” takes about Threads that I think are overblown and reactionary

Just to be extra controversial, I’m actually coming around on Meta as a company a bit. They absolutely were evil, and I don’t fully trust them, but I think they’ve been trying to clean up their image and move in a better direction. I think Meta is genuinely interested in Activitypub and while their intentions are not pure, and are certainly profit driven, I don’t think they have a master plan to destroy the fidiverse. I think they see it in their long term interest for more people to be on the fidiverse so they can more easily compete with TikTok, X, and whatever comes next without the problems of platform lockin and account migration. Also meta is probably the biggest player in open source llm development, so they’ve earned some open source brownie points from me, particularly since I think AI is going to be a big thing and open source development is crucial so we don’t end up ina world where two or three companies control the AGI that everyone else depends on. So my opinion of Meta is evolving past the Cambridge Analytica taste that’s been in my mouth for years.

I look forward to reading everyone’s calm and measured reactions

What is available now, Gemini Pro, is perhaps better than GPT-3.5. Gemini Ultra is not available yet, and won’t be widely available until sometime next year. Ultra is slightly better than GPT-4 on most benchmarks. Not confirmed but it looks like you’ll need to pay to access Geminin Ultra through some kind of Bard Advanced interface, probably much like ChatGPT Plus. So in terms of just foundational model quality, Gemini gets Google at a level where they are competing against OpenAI on something like an even playing field.

What is interesting though is this is going to bring more advanced AI to a lot more people. Not a lot of people use ChatGPT regularly, much less who pay for ChatGPT Plus. But tons of people use Google Workspace for their jobs, and Bard with Gemini Pro is built into those applications.

Also Gemini Nano, capable of running locally on android phones, could be interesting.

It will be interesting to see where things go from here. Does Gemini Ultra come out before GPT-4s one year anniversary? Does Google release further Gemini versions next year to try to get and stay ahead of OpenAI? Does OpenAI, being dethroned from their place of having the world’s best model plus all the turmoil internally, respond by pushing out GPT-5 to reassert dominance? Do developers move from OpenAI APIs to Gemini, especially given OpenAIs recent instability? Does Anthropic stick with its strategy of offering the most boring and easily offended AI system in the world? Will Google Assistant be useful for anything other than telling me the weather and setting alarms? Many questions to answer in 2024!

This is interesting, I’ll need to read it more closely when I have time. But it looks like the researchers gave the model a lot of background information putting it in a box, the model was basically told that it was a trader, that the company was losing money, that the model was worried about this, that the model failed in previous trades, and then the model got the insider info and was basically asked whether it would execute the trade and be honest about it. To be clear, the model was put in a moral dilemma scene and given limited options, execute the trade or not, and be honest about its reasoning or not.

Interesting, sure, useful I’m not so sure. The model was basically role playing and acting like a human trader faced with a moral dilemma. Would the model produce the same result if it was instructed to make morally and legally correct decisions? What if the model was instructed not to be motivated be emotion at all, hence eliminating the “pressure” that the model felt? I guess the useful part of this is a model will act like a human if not instructed otherwise, so we should keep that in mind when deploying AI agents.

All trials might have been unique a decade ago, but it’s basically just yelp for trails and there are several apps that do the same thing but better. The only major changes all trails has made in the years I’ve been using it is locking more and more features behind a subscription fee. I guess that’s “unique”. Certainly more innovative that a pocket conversational AI that I can have an realtime voice conversation with, or send pictures to to ask about real world things I’m seeing, or generating a unique image based on whatever thought pops into my imagination that I can share with others nearly instantly. Nothing interesting about that. The decade old app that collates user submitted trails and their reviews and charges 40 dollars a year to use any of its tracking features is the real game changer.

This isn’t just an OpenAI problem:

We show an adversary can extract gigabytes of training data from open-source language models like Pythia or GPT-Neo, semi-open models like LLaMA or Falcon, and closed models like ChatGPT…

If a model uses copyrighten work for training without permission, and the model memorized it, that could be a problem for whoever created it, open, semi open, or closed source.

This is interesting in terms of copyright law. So far the lawsuits from Sarah Silverman and others haven’t gone anywhere on the theory that the models do not contain a copies of books. Copyright law hinges on whether you have a right to make copies of a work. So the theory has been the models learned from the books but didn’t retain exact copies, like how a human reads a book and learns it’s contents but does not store an exact copy in their head. If the models “memorized” training data, including copyrighten works, OpenAI and others may have a problem (note the researchers said they did this same thing on other models).

For the silicone valley drama addicts, I find it curious that the researchers apparently didn’t do this test on Bard of Anthropic’s Claude, at least the article didn’t mention them. Curious.