3 ms·

What do you mean? Why do LLMs need user data to operate? On a side note, I also don't understand your comparison to "defund the police" - were there any places

What do you mean? Why do LLMs need user data to operate? On a side note, I also don't understand your comparison to "defund the police" - were there any places that fully applied it and demonstrated that it "fails in practice".

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Why do LLMs need user data to operate? Training data? > I also don't understand your comparison to "defund the police" - were there any places that fully applied it and demonstrated that it "fails in practice" It's a famous example where a minority overreacting in a presentable way set the entire movement back.
- lurking_swe 1y ago
  on that note, shouldn’t we ask people to CONSENT to having their data trained on? And when i say consent i mean asking them directly, not hidden in some terms of service. That’s just slimy…like a used car salesman lol. Why is it okay for companies to just vacuum up all user data without 90% of users knowing it’s happening ? Or shall the “stealing” of knowledge and creative works without consent continue?
  - jeroenhd 1y ago
    LLMs need too much data to ethically source their data sets. That's why they rely on aggressive scraping, user-provided prompts, and of course straight-up piracy to fill their datasets. Outcry made Adobe and other such companies put (opt-out) user controls for gathering training data, but writers, especially writers on the internet, are usually ignored. I've seen even the angriest "AI is stealing my art if you use Dall-E you're a bad person" people use ChatGPT, because they don't seem to consider writing to be art or expression as much as they do their own works. Textual data just doesn't seem to be valued, and as a result data scrapers often don't care about annoyances such as "ethics" or "consent" when it comes to gathering training data.
    - lurking_swe 1y ago
      There’s the rub. We pretend a change to the law will make LLM development stall, yet we acknowledge nobody is following the existing laws anyway. Not sure how i feel about the whole thing to be honest. (legal gray area)
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > We pretend a change to the law will make LLM development stall, yet we acknowledge nobody is following the existing laws anyway No. The development is a given. Where it happens is not. That’s the point. If you want to use European data to train, you’d better not have a European nexus.
- pbmonster 1y ago
  >> Why do LLMs need user data to operate? > Training data? What purpose would user data serve in your training set? What's the application of the LLM after it's done training? I'm sure we all understand why the user doesn't want his private data in the training set, but I also don't understand why BigAI would want to train on this data. Except for AI-enhanced advertising, of course. But maybe... nobody should do this anyway?

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Why do LLMs need user data to operate? Training data? > I also don't understand your comparison to "defund the police" - were there any places that fully applied it and demonstrated that it "fails in practice" It's a famous example where a minority overreacting in a presentable way set the entire movement back.

lurking_swe 1y ago
on that note, shouldn’t we ask people to CONSENT to having their data trained on? And when i say consent i mean asking them directly, not hidden in some terms of service. That’s just slimy…like a used car salesman lol. Why is it okay for companies to just vacuum up all user data without 90% of users knowing it’s happening ? Or shall the “stealing” of knowledge and creative works without consent continue?
- jeroenhd 1y ago
  LLMs need too much data to ethically source their data sets. That's why they rely on aggressive scraping, user-provided prompts, and of course straight-up piracy to fill their datasets. Outcry made Adobe and other such companies put (opt-out) user controls for gathering training data, but writers, especially writers on the internet, are usually ignored. I've seen even the angriest "AI is stealing my art if you use Dall-E you're a bad person" people use ChatGPT, because they don't seem to consider writing to be art or expression as much as they do their own works. Textual data just doesn't seem to be valued, and as a result data scrapers often don't care about annoyances such as "ethics" or "consent" when it comes to gathering training data.
  - lurking_swe 1y ago
    There’s the rub. We pretend a change to the law will make LLM development stall, yet we acknowledge nobody is following the existing laws anyway. Not sure how i feel about the whole thing to be honest. (legal gray area)
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > We pretend a change to the law will make LLM development stall, yet we acknowledge nobody is following the existing laws anyway No. The development is a given. Where it happens is not. That’s the point. If you want to use European data to train, you’d better not have a European nexus.
pbmonster 1y ago
>> Why do LLMs need user data to operate? > Training data? What purpose would user data serve in your training set? What's the application of the LLM after it's done training? I'm sure we all understand why the user doesn't want his private data in the training set, but I also don't understand why BigAI would want to train on this data. Except for AI-enhanced advertising, of course. But maybe... nobody should do this anyway?