rutellthesinful

what scenario are you imagining where any of meta’s product offerings are useful to me?

tfw your national strategic reserve of facebook posts is depleted

“Write your system prompt in English” also works

just ask for the output to be reversed or transposed in some way

you’d also probably end up restrictive enough that people could work out what the prompt was by what you’re not allowed to say

is the brain tumor gone or is this a hallucination?

you fool

“these are chatgpt’s recommendations we just provided research to back them up and verify the ai’s work”

companies don’t update legal documents for fun

you’re also continuing to pointedly ignore what this conversation is actually about, so i’m guessing you don’t really have anything relevant to say in response

CYA is not necessarily the same as changing the substance

why would they need to cover themselves against the scenario you’re arguing they were already covering themselves against?

that could’ve been imagined when writing the original TOSs

or when agreeing to them, which is literally the problem here

you can’t meaningfully consent to every arbitrary hypothetical future scenario

you agreed to that too

you know that a company putting a thing in their terms of service doesn’t make it legally binding, right?

hence why they all suddenly felt the need to update their terms of services

It is not very obviously different, as evidenced by the fact that it’s still being argued

people continuing to use a bad argument doesn’t make it a good one

I’m not expecting them to rule against analysis of public data

tell me you haven’t followed anything about this conversation without telling me you haven’t followed anything about this conversation

the update to the legal contract they have you agree to was in no way legally motivated?

You mean before or after all the sites updated their ToS it so that they were legally in the clear to sell user posts to AI training companies? Implying that they weren’t before? Also, are we exclusively talking about cases where sites gave consent to provide data? Rather than just having it be harvested without their knowledge or consent?

And in any case, you’re missing the key point, which is that legality doesn’t matter in either case. You can’t fight a megacorporation just doing whatever they please unless you happen to have an army of lawyers lying around. Most consumers don’t.

I suspect that people wouldn’t like it if copyright got extended to let IP owners prohibit you from learning from their stuff.

Learning from things is a very obviously a completely different process to feeding data into a server farm.

Quite why proponents of AI-generated media still think this argument holds any water after 2 minutes of thought, let alone after almost a full year to consider it, is beyond me.

in this case, microsoft just decided that they didn’t have to bother supporting legacy accounts because they didn’t feel like it, so they pulled them without consent or compensation

in the case of ai generated media, companies just decided that they just had the rights to use existing published media, so they harvested it without consent or compensation

both complaints are the same complaint: that businesses are just deciding on contracts unilaterally and then imposing them on people without the need for consent

Tell that to the cardboard box crawling its way towards the auto turret because the auto turret doesn’t scan it human