Exposed credentials means that somebody got sloppy the password. So yeah, “stolen creds”. Give the fact that a) NYT seems knows which credentials were exposed, and b) We haven’t seen hundreds of other high(er) profile companies have their private repos breached, it is far more likely that NYT fucked up, and not Microsoft (which is what you implied, with nothing to back it up - other than a very narrow-minded definition of the word hack).
deleted by creator
Upvoted because this article was an interesting read.
This actual data is not necessarily representative of the entire situation
You keep saying that, but never back it up with any reason.
Everyone here agrees the data is incomplete, but that it’s the best data we have. Only you keep implying that it’s incorrect because [ever less verifiable, unspecified reasons]. Holy hypocrisy, batman.
Do you mind? We’re trying to have a circlejerk here.
I’m sorry you felt the need to denounce claims in videos while openly admitting you don’t even know what the claims are.
I doubt either one of you will ever hear from them. I guess they haven’t even watched the video to begin with.
I didn’t know those were LLMs, TIL.
You’re missing the point. I’ll make your example more specific.
Well when fraud/rape/murder happens we have laws. So no problems.
Those things happen. Creating a LLM based on copyrighted material without permission happens - it’s not a hypothetical. But even then, giving a punishment after the fact does not make the initial crime “no problem”, as you put it.
I don’t think anyone is faulting the machines for this, just the people who instruct the machines to do it.
Would you be okay with applying that argument for any crime?
Bingo.
Using it to (create a tool to) create derivatives of the work on a massive scale.
Maybe make your point yourself, instead of asking people to Google it for you?
Does that refer to Izzy, or the people who complained because they expressed their opinion?
“All I did was misrepresent something harmless, done by a company that’s doing so much more horrible things that I shouldn’t be using their product in the first place, and now people are calling me out on it. Clearly, they are wrong.”
My bad. I thought clickbait just referred to headlines that don’t deliver. Today I learned.
Nope, but it will stop the less determined ones.
With no email verification, you can pretty much create dozens of fake accounts per second - as fast as the API can handle.
Thanks for emphasising I never called the article clickbait, just outrage-bait, circlejerk and low effort. And I do still think posting it here is just that.
Not OP, but I also don’t think it’s the same thing. But even if it were, the consequences are nowhere near the same.
A person might be able to learn to replicate an artist’s style, given enough practice and patience, but it would take them a long time, and the most “damage” they could do with that, is create new content at roughly the same rate as the original creator.
It would take an AI infinitely less time to acquire that same skill, and infinitely less time to then create that content. So given those factors, I think there’s an enormous difference between 1 person learning to copy your skill, or a company that does it as a business model.
Btw, if you didn’t know it yet - search engines don’t need to create a large language model in order to find web content. They’ve been working fine (one night even say Better) without doing that.