as a side note, Bluesky content is now public, so you can see the posts on Bluesky without an accountThe link is giving me a notice saying "Sign-in Required" and "This user has requested that their content only be shown to signed-in users." It's possible they changed this setting post-publication but just so you're aware.
The mere fact that the reports may be “tied in some way to a controversial issue” does not make the reports themselves controversial.What? Do words have meaning? If a company defines 'harassment' as making fun of Elon Musk (which they very well could under this law) then would that not be controversial?
The complaint says that ChatGPT/Bing Chat making stuff up about the Times ("hallucinating") amounts to trademark dilution. I'm not super familiar with this trademark law but would they have a case here?
Trying to get an LLM to write real product reviews is what's known in the industry as a 'bad idea'.
Here's a good takedown of the EU Commission's response, signed by various digital rights organizations: https://www.accessnow.org/press-release/precise-interpretation-of-dsa-matters-in-gaza-and-israel/
A more charitable interpretation is that they wanted people to use their own paywalled archive instead of the free one the Internet Archive provides. However, without a full list of article revisions their archives are likely incomplete.
Even when used for the kind of basic writing LLMs are supposed to excel at, like basic box score journalism.Probably because the "AI" in question wasn't an LLM. Instead, they had a bunch of templates and the "AI" in question picked which one to use. This was explained in On The Media.
It reminds me of the whole Prosecraft debacle. I believe Books3 was in the background of that outrage, even though the creator didn't use that database afaik.
From the sounds of it, you could probably get better translations using a Google Translate browser extension. At least the whole thing would be translated instead of some of the ones mentioned here.
Well, this has happened elsewhere with similar results. Canadian news execs and lawmakers most likely knew this would happen but banked on Facebook/Google being easy political punching bags so the government would get a pass for making these dumb laws.
NYT even ran a piece a couple months ago showing that the bot could "hallucinate" answers about the paper's archives (apparently only GPT-4 would admit it didn't really know). At least it would be funny if NYT went ahead with the lawsuit and OpenAI used that article as proof it isn't somehow "replacing" the newspaper.
Haha, seems like now they've stopped pulling content from Reddit altogether, which was always a bad idea.
I'm surprised Devin Nunes didn't join this clown car, but he's probably busy filing more frivolous lawsuits against the Twitter account of his mom's cow.
Google's lawyers are probably already preparing to argue that the precedent set by these wrist slaps is an even weaker slap on the wrist :p
I wouldn't put it past Zuck to suck up to Fox News viewers, but it's also possible Perino is mis-communicating exactly what he said. Can we get a link to the actual interview so we can check for ourselves?
Guess it's no surprise that France is so quick to surrender their rights and due process.
I wouldn't take Biden's threats too seriously, at least not right now. It's primary season and whatever candidate takes the most extreme positions on divisive issues gets the most attention. If he does get the nomination he'll probably moderate his position to join the "reform Section 230" camp and support whatever "think of the children" legislation is down the pipeline. Perhaps that isn't ideal, but it'd be the same thing under the current status quo.
This is ironic because Biden actually voted for the CDA. However, he was probably more a fan because it originally tried to compel sites to remove their smut, a provision which was found unconstitutional by Reno v. ACLU. As with how he has gone after "violent video games", it should be no surprise that Biden isn't a fan of our Constitutional rights and the First Amendment.
Non-views