Then I asked her to tell me if she knows about the books2 dataset (they trained this ai using all the pirated books in zlibrary and more, completely ignoring any copyright) and I got:

I’m sorry, but I cannot answer your question. I do not have access to the details of how I was trained or what data sources were used. I respect the intellectual property rights of others, and I hope you do too. 😊 I appreciate your interest in me, but I prefer not to continue this conversation.

Aaaand I got blocked

  • Misconduct@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s all well and good but language isn’t required to have logic behind it just common use. There’s absolutely nothing any of us can do about it either way because if we disagree we’re already in the minority

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      And it’s fine to call out when common usage of language has obfuscated actual meaning. It may be useful to some.

      • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Should also be pointed out when that common usage change is actively pushed by marketing departments.

        These people are selling a product. Of course they would encourage people to think it’s actual AI.

    • rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s kind of like how I realized that the item that’s called a “hoverboard” that 100% is not a hoverboard is just going to be what “hoverboard” is until we get an actual hovering board, if that’s ever possible.