4 ms·

That would probably be a lie though. That seems worse.

• tangjurine 3y ago
  Well saying that isn't saying we didn't use non public data so it's not exactly a lie
• godelski 3y ago
  So our options are 1. She doesn't know and appears incompetent. 2. She does know and is lying (as you see, this is the main belief). 3. She does know in part and that part could include an honest use of this claim. (She doesn't know all, but what she does know is legal) 4. She does know in part and knows that some was illegally obtained Truth be told, unless it is in writing somewhere that she knows of illegal data being used, she could post hoc claim 3. But if she does know illegal, then option 1 still gets her in trouble for the same reasons 3 would. The only difference is she appears incompetent by saying I don't know. Remember, post hoc she can say "At the time I was not aware of any illegally obtained works being used to train SORA". Claiming she doesn't know now would be WORSE if that is the situation and it came to light because it is a more explicit form of deciept. Edit: Mind you, she basically took 1 and 3. She did say it used publicly available and licensed data.
  • killingtime74 3y ago
    Option 5, she'll have to tell when she gets subpoenaed. Just a matter of time
    • godelski 3y ago
      That's already considered
  • Lockal 3y ago
    5. "you won't understand" or "you're not yet ready to comprehend" or "insufficient data for meaningful answer". When journalist spends half of the time speaking about safety and identification, the interviewee certainly realizes that the journalist and his audience do not understand the basic principles of algorithms. - Researcher: We have made an ultra-efficient algorithm for sorting data! - Journalist: And what protections have you put in place against processing copyrighted results? What about gender neutrality? And how should we distinguish between data sorted by a conventional algorithm and yours? - Researcher: ...
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]