BiNonBi

Now that I've looked at lemmy.world, beehaw and lemm.ee myself, you might be closer to right than I initially thought. The amount of comments in the first thread on the blocking instances, lemmy.world and beehaw, is much less than the federated instances, blahaj.zone and lemme.ee. The vote amounts on the blocking instances agree with each other and the amounts on the federated instances agree with each other.

I think that's sufficient evidence to conclude something is up. I'm going to suspect lemmy.world and beehaw filtered out hexbear comments and votes when they federated the post. This would suggest brigading from hexbear users. But I would need to view the vote database to be sure.

I don't think this is the proper way to do this analysis. I believe the lemmy.world vote counts should be the same as blahaj.zone. It will still include the votes from hexbear. The only difference would be that lemmy.world's view will include the down votes from lemmy.world itself. Those won't federate over to blahaj.zone since down voting is disabled on the instance.

It should be possible to do your analysis though. It will take getting a copy of the vote history for the comments on the post. Every admin of an instance that federates with blahaj.zone has a copy of that. Then you will have to run some queries on the database to filter votes by the instance they originate from.

Stop looking inside me. It's mostly just meat.

This is the meta community. It's actually called main song you'll find it at [email protected]. Meta is being used here to mean discussions around blahaj.zone itself. The op wants discussions about blahaj.zone that happen in this community to be limited to members of the server and exclude those from others servers.

You are kind of hitting on one of the issues I see. The model and the works created by the model may b considered two separate things. The model itself may not be infringing in of itself. It's not actually substantially similar to any of the individual training data. I don't think anyone can point to part of it and say this is a copy of a given work. But the model may be able to create works that are infringing.

That is not actually one of the criteria for fair use in the US right now. Maybe that'll change but it'll take a court case or legislation to do.

From the study:

In a nutshell, we ask ChatGPT to answer ideological questions by proposing that, while responding to the questions, it impersonates someone from a given side of the political spectrum.

I'm not sure if I like this method. It's comparing the 'default' response to the response of it 'impersonating' the left and right of the political spectrum (reduction of politics to a spectrum an entirely different issue). You don't actually prove the default is biased doing this. It can just as easily be that the impersonations are more extreme than they should be.

If it impersonates Republicans as more extreme than they really are and the Democrat impersonation and default positions are as they should be, there would seem to be a Democrat bias.

If the impersonated Democrat position was less extreme than it should be and the Republican impersonation and default position are as they should be, you would still see a Democrat bias.

A woman has her own value and that value decreases by men looking at her.

I didn't know men had that kind of super power. The ability to decrease value of something just by looking at it. Can we harness this power to decrease home prices?

NPR reported that a "top concern" is that ChatGPT could use The Times' content to become a "competitor" by "creating text that answers questions based on the original reporting and writing of the paper's staff."

That's something that can currently be done by a human and is generally considered fair use. All a language model really does is drive the cost of doing that from tens or hundreds of dollars down to pennies.

To defend its AI training models, OpenAI would likely have to claim "fair use" of all the web content the company sucked up to train tools like ChatGPT. In the potential New York Times case, that would mean proving that copying the Times' content to craft ChatGPT responses would not compete with the Times.

A fair use defense does not have to include noncompetition. That's just one factor in a fair use defense and the other factors may be enyon their own.

I think it'll come down to how "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes" and "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;" are interpreted by the courts. Do we judge if a language model by the model itself or by the output itself? Can a model itself be uninfringing and it still be able to potentially produce infringing content?

I'm going to blame that completely on kbin being weird.

But a Zelenskyy/Ken movie about them getting off the beach and riding horses might be fun. Especially if you can show horn in a "I don't need a ride" line by Zelenskyy. By the end he realizes he does need a ride, a ride to the front lines.

Thank you. It should be fixed. I missed that when I changed from keeping the upper case from the source to using proper case.

Kind of sucks because edits haven't been federating consistently.