we appear to be the first to write up the outrage coherently too. much thanks to the illustrious @self

  • Lumisal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m too old to discuss against bad faith arguments.

    Especially with people who won’t read the information I provide them showing their initial information was wrong.

    One is a company that has something to sell, the other an article with citations showing why it’s not easy to determine what percentage of a data set is infringing on copyright, or whether exact reproduction via “fishing expedition” prompting is a useful metric to determine if unauthorized copyright was used in training.

    The dumbest take though is attacking Mistral of all LLMs, even though it’s on an Apache 2.0 license.

      • Lumisal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Well since you want to use computers to continue the discussion, here’s also ChatGPT:

        Determining the exact percentage of copyrighted data used to train a large language model (LLM) is challenging for several reasons:

        1. Scale and Variety of Data Sources: LLMs are typically trained on vast and diverse datasets collected from the internet, including books, articles, websites, and social media. This data encompasses both copyrighted and non-copyrighted content. The datasets are often so large and varied that it is difficult to precisely categorize each piece of data.

        2. Data Collection and Processing: During the data collection process, the primary focus is on acquiring large volumes of text rather than cataloging the copyright status of each individual piece. While some datasets, like Common Crawl, include metadata about the sources, they do not typically include detailed copyright status information.

        3. Transformation and Use: The data used for training is transformed into numerical representations and used to learn patterns, making it even harder to trace back and identify the copyright status of specific training examples.

        4. Legal and Ethical Considerations: The legal landscape regarding the use of copyrighted materials for AI training is still evolving. Many AI developers rely on fair use arguments, which complicates the assessment of what constitutes a copyright violation.

        Efforts are being made within the industry to better understand and address these issues. For example, some organizations are working on creating more transparent and ethically sourced datasets. Projects like RedPajama aim to provide open datasets that include details about data sources, helping to identify and manage the use of copyrighted content more effectively【6†source】.

        Overall, while it is theoretically possible to estimate the proportion of copyrighted content in a training dataset, in practice, it is a complex and resource-intensive task that is rarely undertaken with precision.

            • froztbyte@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              no, you utter fucking clown. they’re literally posting to take the piss out of you, the only person in the room who isn’t getting that everyone is laughing at them, not with them

            • Steve@awful.systems
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              re-read your chatgpt response and think about whether the percentages in my original link could be too high or too low.

              • froztbyte@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                too high or too low

                trick question everyone knows this late on a friday you want a body high for that nice mellow low feeling

              • Steve@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                but, like, really think this time. at this point i’m not arguing with you, i’m trying to help you.

        • froztbyte@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          you should speak to a physicist, they might be able to find a way your density can contribute to science

    • froztbyte@awful.systems
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      I’ve read the article you’ve posted:. it does not refute the fucking datapoint provided, it literally DOES NOT EVEN MENTION MISTRAL AT ALL.

      so all I can tell you is to take your pearlclutching tantrum bullshit and please fuck off already