Nice reminder that higher education wasn't always a bastion of the radical left-wing. But wait!
'“It is indeed refreshing to know,” wrote one lawmaker, “that we have at least one instance of higher learning that is not shot through with communism.”'
Ah. Perhaps this answer's the article's question of why no-one commemorated it with a folk song in the 60s.
I fail to see how they're lazy, sounds like they were quite the opposite. And really, the students explained the crux of the matter quite well. You can request solidarity, but you cannot force it by thuggery. You might bring out some brats and end up in the still-chilly water of the local river.
The point is that the students are not workers themselves. It is not them that could be "forced" to be on strike. So their reason is because they don't accept that "others" might be forced to be on strike...
"New Jersey Administrative Code § 17:3-6.5 defines willful negligence as:
Deliberate act or deliberate failure to act; or
Such conduct as evidences reckless indifference to safety..."
Now obviously that link refers specifically to injury compensation, but it's pretty easy to see how you would make a case that the actions of these companies constitutes reckless indifference to safety, whether or not they actually intended hacking to occur.
Well when these AI bros are yelling from the top of the hill “hey guys look how dangerous my stuff is” then anything they do from this point forward looks quite full of demonstrable intent.
Around 1997 there was something awfully similar to this doing the rounds, called AI Wars. IIRC it was code rather than weights, but it's a funny parallel. 30 years! God I'm old.
Maybe I'm in a generous mood, but I would credit the writer with making a joke about the content of the film they had just mentioned and subsequently show a screen cap of work the subtitles for a line about RISC being a significant future technology, rather than being that historically inaccurate in their own tech memory.
You can't deny it's a bit popular right now. "Aphantasia is the new AuDHD".
Doesn't mean it's not real, but I'm sure we'll see it creep into "I have aphantasia because I'm unable to crisply visualise a fully detailed lifelike scene from memory with my eyes closed".
Certain types of meditation training involve specifically this faculty - the ability to hold a particular image steady in the visual imagination. Having the ability to vividly imagine a visual scene or a simple geometric shape is very much a muscle which can be trained; the brain is very plastic in this regard.
Great article, but it's not telling the whole story.
Since the Chorleywood Bread Process, British agriculture - selective breeding - has bred strains of wheat which reach high protein levels in the British environment. So the Chorleywood process these days is about using the less-good British wheat for cheap supermarket bread.
"Strong" flour that you can buy in shops is now mostly British as well.
I'm genuinely surprised that more people - including this mathematician in particular - don't untick the "improve the model for everyone" box. Unless the suggestion is that OpenAI ignore this preference?
Given OpenAI's well documented history of unethical behaviour it seems adorably naive to think they actually do that in general, or that they wouldn't pull this particular data separately to generate these proofs.
Unethical doesn't mean irrational. They'd be risking massive lawsuits and a total loss of trust if they got caught lying about this. Doesn't seem worth it.
By "loss of trust", I meant that this is something they would risk losing a lot of users over, which isn't the case with the other lawsuits. There is a massive distinction between fighting third parties in a legal grey area and committing blatant fraud against your own users. Even if you have no regards for ethics, intentionally shipping a noop "do not train" toggle offers negligible upside for a massive downside.
I answered your initial question in good faith, but it's increasingly clear each time you shift the goalposts that you're more interested in JAQ than discussing.
As before, despite your prevarication, I've provided examples of
- Massive lawsuits
- Risks to consumer trust
That's what was asked for; your assertion that it will totally all be fine doesn't invalidate that.
I know you are excited to quibble endlessly over this, but it's transparently disingenuous each time you jump to a new point and pretend it was there originally.
Consider: if your point was defensible, you would have been able to make it honestly.
Those examples aren't really comparable in scale, especially regarding risk to consumer trust. How many users did they actually lose from wrongful death lawsuits? I guess very few.
Shipping an intentionally fake privacy toggle is fundamentally different. That is deliberate, active deception targeted at the entire user base. The resulting fallout would be far more damaging to them than settling an isolated lawsuit. That could even potentially cross the threshold into criminal fraud. I'm genuinely incredulous you believe they'd take so much risk for so little reward.
That doesn't stop them from training on your data apparently. I have that disabled but still has to disable "Don't train on my data" in the privacy center too.
Is this claim based on anything besides there being an alternative way to disable it? The privacy center mirrors multiple other functions as well, like account deletion and downloading personal data, but the corresponding buttons in ChatGPT are still doing what they are supposed to.
Even that sort of thing they could just as easily go 6 months from now
"oopsie guys, turns out our vibe coded "don't train on my data" toggle was just flipping the ui asset not changing any underlying boolean flag associated with your account. sorry but all that stuff is in the training set now and we don't know how to get it out either and no we won't be doing a 6 month rollback."
I think that flow is an easy way to disable everything, so there isn’t a risk of forgetting to flip one thing back off after accidentally setting it on. I set my ChatGPT environment to allow model improvement for example but had to check my codex settings to make sure ‘Include environments’ for model improvement is off.
I think if I had both on and turned off the ChatGPT setting, ‘Include environments’ has a chance of still being flipped on.
If that's true, it's scandalous. The "improve the model for everyone" dialogue states:
"Allow your content to be used to train our models, which makes ChatGPT better for you and everyone who uses it. We take steps to protect your privacy. Learn more"
That option is really bad UX - you have to know to do it, you have to know what plan it is needed on. If you're not working in AI, I just don't think that's a reasonable expectation.
Even if you know, in a complex project over years with multiple collaborators, it just needs one person once to fuck up and paste something into ChatGPT and not realise they weren't logged in, to go wrong.
In a proper world, we'd at the very least legislate that AI-training on private data needs consent (in the GDPR sense). It's not consent to go "you didn't uncheck a box that lets me steal everything you've done".
Any training on private data is in my view immoral (it's spying that ultimately will have a chilling effect on even people's private communications). And chats are private data. Unfortunately, it also increases power, so the big tech companies are all doing it.
'“It is indeed refreshing to know,” wrote one lawmaker, “that we have at least one instance of higher learning that is not shot through with communism.”'
Ah. Perhaps this answer's the article's question of why no-one commemorated it with a folk song in the 60s.
reply