3 ms·

I wouldn't trust this with a 10 foot pole. Given facebooks record why would we as a people's even allow this?

giancarlostoro 4y ago
I don't trust Facebook at all, but we need more than just "THE EVIL AI WAS MADE BY AN EVIL COMPANY" what is the concern? They're going to shove ads into your AI?
- freejazz 4y ago
  They impermissibly used customer's information in the data set? that they knowingly disregarded known risks of harm associated with the product?
  - return_to_monke 4y ago
    got any citations on that one, mate?
    - freejazz 4y ago
      I didn't make any claims, someone asked what could facebook do that would be of concern, and I gave two examples of their past conduct.
  - giancarlostoro 4y ago
    I would hope not, have you seen the dumb stuff my relatives say? I think you need to provide some evidence to back your claim though.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      I didn't make any claims - someone asked what could they have done, and I listed two things they did recently...
  - hewlett 4y ago
    > https://research.facebook.com/file/1574548786327032/LLaMA--Open-and-Efficient-Foundation-Language-Models.pdf https://research.facebook.com/file/1574548786327032/LLaMA--O... > Dataset Sampling prop. Epochs Disk size > CommonCrawl 67.0% 1.10 3.3 TB > C4 15.0% 1.06 783 GB > Github 4.5% 0.64 328 GB > Wikipedia 4.5% 2.45 83 GB > Books 4.5% 2.23 85 GB > ArXiv 2.5% 1.06 92 GB > StackExchange 2.0% 1.03 78 GB At no point do they use information from Facebook customers
- russdpale 4y ago
  No, we don't anymore than that. Would you trust a fucking murderer? Facebook has been weaponized numerous times, why would this be any different? Why would they be given any benefit of the doubt?
titaniumtown 4y ago
Facebook has a record of tainting their machine learning models? I was not aware of that.
- scubbo 4y ago
  It is disingenuous to pretend not to understand that unethical behaviour in one area is a strong predictor of unethhical behaviour in another area.
  - Reubend 4y ago
    It's disingenuous to make assumptions and argue without having made a good faith effort to see if what you're saying is true. 5 minutes of research would have taken you to the research paper in question, which has a straightforward description of the training data sources: CommonCrawl 67.0% C4 15.0% Github 4.5% Wikipedia 4.5% Books 4.5% ArXiv 2.5% StackExchange 2.0% So in other words, nothing here in this research has used people's social media posts, and there's no private data whatsoever because the sources used were all public.
    - scubbo 4y ago
      Good to know, and I always appreciate and respect people bringing statistics and citations - but this in no way refutes my core point that it is always reasonable to assume that Facebook will act unethically based on their past behaviour. You've provided a strong datapoint indicating that the training sources in question were ethically sourced* - that's good! I'm glad to hear that Facebook avoided _this specific way of acting unethically_. This does not affect in any way my judgement of the likelihood of Facebook acting in _other_ unethical ways in this area, such as using the collected data in unethical ways. * I don't, personally, hold the opinion that "just because something was posted publicly means that it is ethically permissible to do _anything_ with that content", since it's unreasonable to believe that the average internet user is giving informed consent to uses like this - but I do concede that that's a more subjective perspective and is probably not supported by the letter of the law. Luckily, this isn't relevant to my argument. As an aside - I clicked around in a few pages on CommonCrawl's site (https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/what-we-do/ https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/what-we-do/, https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/frequently-asked-questions/ https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/frequently-asked-questio..., https://commoncrawl.org/the-data/get-started/ https://commoncrawl.org/the-data/get-started/) and didn't see any statement to the effect that social media posts were excluded, and a Google search for "Does CommonCrawl index social media" didn't provide a definitive answer, either. You're under no obligation to prove it to me - and, as I detailed above, even if you did, it wouldn't affect my general distrust of Facebook.
madsmith 4y ago
I’m biased because I used to work for Facebook a long time ago. So take my words with a grain of salt. But Facebook research really wants to build amazing tech to power new experiences. The company has attracted many smart and amazing developers who want to pioneer innovation and want to see their work thrive in the broader tech community. I’m sure this will have the same issues as the other Large Language Models and there’s a lot of work to be done to figure out how to distill a reliably useful system from something trained on so much human language which is unreliable. I’m heartened to see them talk about needing to research how to remove bias, toxicity, disinformation and hallucinations. This is something we need to focus on for all LLMs so I’m happy to see more focus on that in the community.
- theGnuMe 4y ago
  The FAIR group is top notch.
- russdpale 4y ago
  I don't really think it matters what the research team wants or doesn't want. That is totally insignificant to what the decisions makers want and implement into the facebook product. What you helped work for was to build a giant spy tool for corporate and government actors. Your own friends, neighbors, and even family surely have some kind of shadow profile on facebook, sleazily tied to other services, packaged, and sold on equally sleazy and opaque data markets. Personally, I would support the government just shutting down facebook altogether, by force if necessary. They have lost all trust with me, and any benefit to society has easily been drowned by their numerous public failures, up to and including genocide. Like, once your company is involved in genocide, that should be it. Game over.

I don't trust Facebook at all, but we need more than just "THE EVIL AI WAS MADE BY AN EVIL COMPANY" what is the concern? They're going to shove ads into your AI?

freejazz 4y ago
They impermissibly used customer's information in the data set? that they knowingly disregarded known risks of harm associated with the product?
- return_to_monke 4y ago
  got any citations on that one, mate?
  - freejazz 4y ago
    I didn't make any claims, someone asked what could facebook do that would be of concern, and I gave two examples of their past conduct.
- giancarlostoro 4y ago
  I would hope not, have you seen the dumb stuff my relatives say? I think you need to provide some evidence to back your claim though.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    I didn't make any claims - someone asked what could they have done, and I listed two things they did recently...
- hewlett 4y ago
  > https://research.facebook.com/file/1574548786327032/LLaMA--Open-and-Efficient-Foundation-Language-Models.pdf https://research.facebook.com/file/1574548786327032/LLaMA--O... > Dataset Sampling prop. Epochs Disk size > CommonCrawl 67.0% 1.10 3.3 TB > C4 15.0% 1.06 783 GB > Github 4.5% 0.64 328 GB > Wikipedia 4.5% 2.45 83 GB > Books 4.5% 2.23 85 GB > ArXiv 2.5% 1.06 92 GB > StackExchange 2.0% 1.03 78 GB At no point do they use information from Facebook customers
russdpale 4y ago
No, we don't anymore than that. Would you trust a fucking murderer? Facebook has been weaponized numerous times, why would this be any different? Why would they be given any benefit of the doubt?

titaniumtown 4y ago

Facebook has a record of tainting their machine learning models? I was not aware of that.

scubbo 4y ago
It is disingenuous to pretend not to understand that unethical behaviour in one area is a strong predictor of unethhical behaviour in another area.
- Reubend 4y ago
  It's disingenuous to make assumptions and argue without having made a good faith effort to see if what you're saying is true. 5 minutes of research would have taken you to the research paper in question, which has a straightforward description of the training data sources: CommonCrawl 67.0% C4 15.0% Github 4.5% Wikipedia 4.5% Books 4.5% ArXiv 2.5% StackExchange 2.0% So in other words, nothing here in this research has used people's social media posts, and there's no private data whatsoever because the sources used were all public.
  - scubbo 4y ago
    Good to know, and I always appreciate and respect people bringing statistics and citations - but this in no way refutes my core point that it is always reasonable to assume that Facebook will act unethically based on their past behaviour. You've provided a strong datapoint indicating that the training sources in question were ethically sourced* - that's good! I'm glad to hear that Facebook avoided _this specific way of acting unethically_. This does not affect in any way my judgement of the likelihood of Facebook acting in _other_ unethical ways in this area, such as using the collected data in unethical ways. * I don't, personally, hold the opinion that "just because something was posted publicly means that it is ethically permissible to do _anything_ with that content", since it's unreasonable to believe that the average internet user is giving informed consent to uses like this - but I do concede that that's a more subjective perspective and is probably not supported by the letter of the law. Luckily, this isn't relevant to my argument. As an aside - I clicked around in a few pages on CommonCrawl's site (https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/what-we-do/ https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/what-we-do/, https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/frequently-asked-questions/ https://commoncrawl.org/big-picture/frequently-asked-questio..., https://commoncrawl.org/the-data/get-started/ https://commoncrawl.org/the-data/get-started/) and didn't see any statement to the effect that social media posts were excluded, and a Google search for "Does CommonCrawl index social media" didn't provide a definitive answer, either. You're under no obligation to prove it to me - and, as I detailed above, even if you did, it wouldn't affect my general distrust of Facebook.

madsmith 4y ago

I’m biased because I used to work for Facebook a long time ago. So take my words with a grain of salt. But Facebook research really wants to build amazing tech to power new experiences. The company has attracted many smart and amazing developers who want to pioneer innovation and want to see their work thrive in the broader tech community. I’m sure this will have the same issues as the other Large Language Models and there’s a lot of work to be done to figure out how to distill a reliably useful system from something trained on so much human language which is unreliable. I’m heartened to see them talk about needing to research how to remove bias, toxicity, disinformation and hallucinations. This is something we need to focus on for all LLMs so I’m happy to see more focus on that in the community.

theGnuMe 4y ago
The FAIR group is top notch.
russdpale 4y ago
I don't really think it matters what the research team wants or doesn't want. That is totally insignificant to what the decisions makers want and implement into the facebook product. What you helped work for was to build a giant spy tool for corporate and government actors. Your own friends, neighbors, and even family surely have some kind of shadow profile on facebook, sleazily tied to other services, packaged, and sold on equally sleazy and opaque data markets. Personally, I would support the government just shutting down facebook altogether, by force if necessary. They have lost all trust with me, and any benefit to society has easily been drowned by their numerous public failures, up to and including genocide. Like, once your company is involved in genocide, that should be it. Game over.