4 ms·
My bet it's probably a filter, trying to prevent create a even more realistic farmbots in social media, as they are already bad as they are now.
by javchz 4y ago
My bet it's probably a filter, trying to prevent create a even more realistic farmbots in social media, as they are already bad as they are now.
- robonerd 4y agoBut they'll consider requests from government and industry.. both greater threats in the information war than any private individual.
- xxpor 4y agoNot from their perspective
- robonerd 4y agoOf course. To somebody in Zuck's position, shoring up the power of the status quo is common sense.
- alimov 4y agoI don’t know whether this is true and have no way of knowing this with any degree of certainty, but to me it seems unlikely that Mark had anything to do with this stipulation (requesting access). Although it’s not unimaginable.
- IAmEveryone 4y agoSince “everyone” would include governments and industry as well, their restriction is guaranteed to not contain more bad actors than no restriction.
- bogwog 4y agoThat is dumb when you consider that this thing is likely going to leak anyways. It’s inevitable, and when it does happen, it will just end up in the hands of criminals/scammers and not the general public.
- londons_explore 4y agoIt's super easy to watermark weights for ML models. Just add a random 0.01 to a random weight anywhere in the network. It will have very little impact on the results, but will mean you can identify who leaked the weights.
- ipaddr 4y agoCompare two copies.
- vladf 4y agoSlightly modify a million random weights by changing the least significant bit up or down.
- ipaddr 4y agoCompare three copies.
- ALittleLight 4y agoOr slightly randomly modify all the parameters on the copy you distribute, then it will be a match for nobody.