General_Effort

If the same user can generate the same input, it will result in the same hash.

Yes, if. I don't know if you can guarantee that. It's all fun and games as long as you're doing English. In other languages, you get characters that can be encoded in more than 1 way. User at home has a localized keyboard with a dedicated key for such a character. User travels across the border and has a different language keyboard and uses a different way to create the character. Euro problems.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_equivalence

Byte length of the character is irrelevant as long as you’re not doing something ridiculous like intentionally parsing your input in binary and blithely assuming that every character must be 8 bits in length.

There is always some son-of-a-bitch who doesn’t get the word.

• John F. Kennedy

You should accept Unicode; if doing so, you must count each code as one char.

Hmm. I wonder about this one. Different ways to encode the same character. Different ways to calculate the length. No obvious max byte size.

I think, for a lot of people, technology has come to mean a few websites, or companies.

There are a few lemmy communities dedicated to AI, but they are very inactive. Basically, I'd have to send you to Reddit.

Americans may be seeing serious savings in that picture.

I am seeing serious evolutionary pressure on liver genetics.

Das wird so nicht funktionieren. Es ist ziemlich egal, wie du die Verleumdung verbreitest. Es kommt darauf an, dass du es tust.

In diesem Fall ist es ziemlich unwahrscheinlich, dass irgendjemand bei OpenAI jemals auch nur von diesem Mann gehört hat. Wie können sie ihn dann verleumden?

Sollte sein Ruf durch das Produkt gelitten haben, dann gäbe es wahrscheinlich die Möglichkeit Schadenersatz zu verlangen. Der Artikel gibt aber keinen Hinweis auf so einen Schaden. Ich sehe nicht mal einen Hinweis, dass sonst irgendwer ChatGPT über den Mann befragt hätte, geschweige denn die Aussage geglaubt hat.

Ich verstehe, dass du dich irgendwie gestört fühlst. Man könnte die Gesetze ändern. Aber was genau will man damit erreichen? Warum ist es so wichtig zu kontrollieren, was andere Leute mit ihren Geräten machen?

Mir geht es bei dieser Frage um diesen Willen zur Machtausübung. Es gibt ja schon ultra-viele Vorschriften, sodass man Computer-technisch kaum was machen kann. Ich glaube nicht, dass es Lemmy-Instanzen in der EU gibt, die rechtskonform sind. Was soll sowas?

can exercising one’s agency over their body really be considered “rent-seeking”?

First of all, I am not impressed by this kind of emotional manipulation. You are talking about exercising agency, power, over other people's bodies. If someone, whether a VFX artist or a hobbyist, would use a likeness without a license, you want them stopped. At the end of the day that means that LEOs will use physical force. You may not think of something like copyright being enforced through physical force, but that is what happens if someone steadfastly refuses to pay fines or damages.

Enforcing intellectual property, like a likeness right, means ultimately exercising power over other people's bodies. The body whose likeness it is, may not be involved at all. In the typical case of a Hollywood star, they would be completely unaware of what the enforcers are doing.

Rent-seeking is an economics term. Rent-seeking is as rent-seeking does. You may feel that society - the common people -have to suffer for "justice", like people were expected to suffer for the diving rights of kings. But you can't expect people not to remark the negative consequences. Well, I guess if I were living in such a monarchy, subject to the divine right of a king, I would be quite circumspect. I wouldn't want to be tortured or imprisoned, after all. And yet it moves.

Usually, rent-seeking involves property, and yet the right to own property is internationally recognized as a human right.

to alienate workers from their labor and exploit them.

We're probably not on the same page regarding terminology. This sounds like a Karl Marx idea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_alienation

Obviously that's not what you mean. I guess I'm just surprised to see these hints of leftism mixed in with conservative economics.

SAG-AFTRA

...is fundamentally a conservative organization. It's no coincidence that Ronald Reagan was president of SAG, before becoming president of the US. They will favor the in-group over the out-group and the top over everyone at the bottom. That's what the doctrines you are repeating are designed for.

The memory feature of ChatGPT is basically like a human taking notes. Of course, the AI can also use other documents as reference. This technique is called RAG. -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrieval-augmented_generation

Sidenote. This isn't the place to ask technical questions about AI. It's like asking your friendly neighborhood evangelical about evolution.

I have the distinct impression that a number of people would object to the purpose of re-hosting their content as part of a commercial service, especially one run by Google.

Anyway, now no one has to worry about Google helping people bypass their robots.txt or IP-blocks or whatever counter-measures they take. And Google doesn't have to worry about being sued. Next stop: The Wayback Machine.

Wenn dich die NPCs in einem Spiel als Milchtrinker beleidigen, wirst du damit leben müssen. Das heißt aber nicht, dass es eine Ausnahme für Programme gibt. So funktioniert das nicht.

Er hat eine Maschine bedient, die Texte generiert. Mit der Maschine hat er einen Text erzeugt, der ihn verleumdet. Soll er sich selber anzeigen?

Nicht vergessen, dass die KI kein Mensch ist. Und wenn, wäre es Beleidigung, wenn nicht nachgewiesen wird, dass die Falschbehauptung auch gegenüber anderen gemacht wurde.

Ich denke, die Hersteller sollten deutlicher auf die Schwächen der Anwendung hinweisen. Ein älterer Mensch weiß ja nicht, was das ist, wenn auf einmal Copilot im Edge Browser auftaucht. Aber ob sowas Schadenersatz wegen seelischer Grausamkeit oä rechtfertigt, glaube ich eher nicht.