3 ms·
> and self-serving analogies to human learning should be rejected. Not sure how this is self-serving or a reference to human learning. This is a pretty emotion
by jmward01 2y ago
> and self-serving analogies to human learning should be rejected.
Not sure how this is self-serving or a reference to human learning. This is a pretty emotional reply and it makes it hard to see the points you are trying to make.
I think there is a discussion about the legitimacy of scraping in general that is ongoing, which is a lot of what I brought up in my post. Training using scraped information should be part of that discussion.
- tivert 2y ago> Not sure how this is self-serving or a reference to human learning. An argument I frequently see made to defend companies who take all kinds of people's content to build LLMs (which then compete with the people's whose stuff they took) is this: 1. People learn from seeing examples, and that's protected. 2. Machine/LLMs learn from the content (the trick being pulled is to equate human learning with machine learning). 3. Therefore OpenAI, Google, etc. should be able take everyone's stuff to build the tech they want to sell / I want to use / fulfills my nerd fantasies. It's self-serving because they don't care about the harm done to build the thing they want, so are trying to excuse that harm away. > This is a pretty emotional reply What's wrong with emotion?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]