Hacker reverse engineers his Samsung TV and finds on-device AI listening for your dog and baby, watching what you watch, and borrowing your soundbar's mic if the TV doesn't have one. Then OpenAI banned him for reverse-engineering it.

Source:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 5 days ago (37 children)

Ethical from the start you mean? Trained on data with the blessing of the owner?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 37 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 5 days ago (4 children)

    First of all, yes, and also not all ai has to be generative or llms. Theres also a lot of other ai that was done before openai fucked everything up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 days ago (2 children)

    When we say AI, we generally mean the LLMs. It's become a marketing term for them.

    Obviously, we used neural networks and such ethically for a long time.

    The problem isnt those, it's the mass harvesting of data, the endless copyright breaches, the stealing of peoples work. All to resell it. While ruining the planet with datacenters, economically and it has fucked with the way people think.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    I mean yeah thats true but ethical llms are still completely possible but nobodys investing into it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 5 days ago

    Because it's about money. That's it.

    There's no money to be made from ethical ones, you need enough people willing to give you the rights to their stuff for free, because you would not be able to give royalties to them all.

    We already see how unsustainable it is currently with the grand theft models and are just waiting for the bubble to burst.

    AI can fuck off and die, we dont need it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 5 days ago (21 children)
  • [–] 10 points 5 days ago (20 children)

    Well, their books are, yes.

    But, the similarities largely stop there, in this instance. Training "AI" on literature isn't at all similar to a single person checking out a book/magazine/dvd/et al, and that's not even getting into the fact that the aforementioned fuckers are destroying tons of physical copies IRL to "train" their bullshit bots.

    "AI" ≈ libraries? Pff. We would be so lucky. 🥲

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 days ago (19 children)

    When y'all complained about them leeching Anna's Archive, the legal approach you demanded means buying and shredding one copy of any book they use. They can't resell the book or share their scan because that's piracy, which Lemmy cares deeply about in this context and only this context.

    Training is transformative. A program that can retell Shrek in the style of The Hobbit is not even the same category of thing as either original work. What a network is and does cannot be a substitute, unless the Silmarillion had more swamp ogres than I've heard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 5 days ago (18 children)

    Don't apologize for them —especially not with shit argument points and implied shame. Fuck off with that shit. None of this is a consequence of "our" actions, and your stance is more simp than solid. Nah. Hard pass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago (17 children)
  • [–] -1 points 4 days ago (16 children)

    I'll say. Wrangling cats is easier than whatever this is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (15 children)

    Additional sneering is worse.

    If you want these companies to do things the right, proper, and legal way - that means shredding books. That's the only way to get a scan and "own" it. Blame our stupid laws for not offering better options. Mostly books scanned this way are mass-market paperbacks, because nothing popular is rare, and most important things are fairly popular. This is inseparable from your rights over any physical media you own, and the dumbest possible thing we could do is make copyright worse just because you're sour about a chatbot.

    You should want better options for these companies. They'd love to brag about how many niche titles they've preserved, if they could just plop their scans onto Archive.org. That's a better end than a lot of oddities would get, languishing on a shelf until they hit the trash.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago (5 children)

    Mostly books scanned this way are mass-market paperbacks, because nothing popular is rare, and most important things are fairly popular.

    They're buying rare books, too. They don't think it's worth their time to pick and choose, and money is no object. There was a story about this fairly recently.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (4 children)

    There was a story about this every week for the last year. Every single time, acting like it's fresh and shocking and inexplicable. Like they're doing anything more than buying ONE copy each.

    Hey, wouldn't it be great if they could share those scans of expensive oddities? Maybe we should relax the laws that turn old books into vulnerable secrets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (3 children)

    What makes you think that they would share them?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (2 children)

    Again, you already replied to the comment where I explained that. As if it takes explaining. They knew that people would endlessly flip out, so they did this in secret, which cost more money and did not last. Why wouldn't they prefer the effortless public goodwill of dumping all those PDFs on Archive.org? A couple gigabytes of uploads would have turned this cloak-and-dagger affair into a public relations campaign.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago* (1 child)

    Amazon doesn't care about public goodwill unless it affects their bottom line. It isn't affecting their bottom line, because despite people being outraged over the destruction of rare books, nobody AFAIK is organizing a boycott. Making the PDFs publicly available would also allow their rivals to use them for training data.

    The idea that Amazon would upload anything to archive.org is absurd. Why would they expend any effort to make a handful of people happy? You're thinking about what you would do if you were Amazon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 4 days ago

    "Which cost more money" is their bottom line.

    I'm treating them as greedy and manipulative - you're treating them like cartoon supervillains.

    Do you think the constant hue and cry over "they're shredding books!!!" has no impact on their operations? Like it's somehow disconnected from the surprisingly effective backlash over data centers? It's certainly making anti-AI clickbait highly profitable, if every fucking tabloid blog takes a turn to rehash the story.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (8 children)

    ... to do things the right, proper, and legal way - that means shredding books.

    Sorry, are you high? How tf does that make sense? Do you shred the books you buy, after reading them?

    This particular use you seem to be irrationally shilling for is nothing like anything humankind has experienced before, let alone a variation on commerce that's been ethically overseen, and should be treated as such: with ironclad, tailor-fit licensing per-use to utilize specific content, and with fines proportionate to its corp's worth for each failure/breach. (which likely will be many, in the beginning, as the leeches test the new boundaries)

    And, until that is even viable, they don't get to "train" their half-assed LLMs on anything they don't have explicit permission to do so. Full stop.

    That any of us here would prefer to let it slide "this time" belies a collective accessory to the currently conflagrating reality we all share.

    ^*^ : bullshit they are; we'll hear about the infinitesimal "fine" later on, once it benefits them to shift public focus. Check back later, see if they don't.

    edit: FWIW, the glaring fact that the current draconian laws that're being complied with^*^ are irrelevant to this unique type of transaction and are only serving to justify the rapid destruction of priceless literary works, etc. isn't exactly engendering hope.

    Also:

    They'd love to brag about how many niche titles they've preserved

    jesuschrist. You've gulped the Kool-Aid, my guy. 🤢 You know "them" personally? They call you at home? Like you somehow have a finger on the pulse of what "they'd love to" do.

    ...or, maybe you do. 🤔

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago (7 children)

    One of us is pulling laws out of their ass, and it's not me.

    For the same reason you're allowed to rip your CDs to MP3 without the record label's permission, you can make backup scans of a book. If you then sell the book - that's not a backup. You can never let anyone else own that copy, if you want to keep using your backup. Since the easiest way to scan a book is to cut the spine off, it's not difficult to see why these companies dump the pages when they're done. Well. It's not difficult unless you stick your fingers in your ears and go 'la la la that can't be how things work.'

    It's not a matter of "this time." I do not give a fuck about actual piracy. Why am I supposed to care that some company did math about library books? What they're doing is only legal because of your rights to the products you buy, and what they're doing is only required because eternal copyright has suffocated the public domain.

    The US constitution explicitly states that copyright exists to promote the useful arts and sciences. Protecting dead trees with the words of dead authors, to stop a technology whose limits we've barely seen, is antithetical to that purpose.

    There will come vegan models. There will be very small networks, trained on bespoke data happily provided by open-source ultranerds, which achieve the spooky parts of modern datacenter behemoths. Obviously the ability to reason doesn't require knowing what Harry Potter is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 4 days ago (6 children)

    Ah. I see we're moving the goal posts now? Does this usually work for you? I, for one, really enjoy talking to cement. Have fun doing you, homes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

    The fuck I have. Explain yourself.

    I have consistently told you: this is legal because of copyright law, and you should want that law weakened so the parts you despise are not mandatory.

    To your late edit: I know these doomed companies would brag about sharing their scans of individual rare books because it would be cheaper than the effort to do it in secret, and better marketing than the endless screeching after they were inevitably found out. Tell me otherwise. Walk me through how any company would rather suffer this game of telephone where it sounds like they're burning down libraries, if they could instead announce how much good they've done for the world, never-you-mind their naked underlying motives.

    Recently someone scoffed - "It sounds like you’re comparing the most reasonable views of the pro-AI crowd to the most reactionary views of the anti-AI crowd." Threads like this are why. Threads like this are all there is. This is in the goddamn LocalLLaMA community, and I still have to deal with irrational insulting nonsense - for saying "libraries are for reeeadiiing."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (1 child)

    I know these doomed companies would brag about sharing their scans of individual rare books because it would be cheaper than the effort to do it in secret, and better marketing than the endless screeching after they were inevitably found out. Tell me otherwise.

    This was a fairly recent story. So far, I have heard nothing about them sharing the scans.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    All AI defenders do is present strawman arguments. It all boils down to "I am lazy" in the ends.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago*

    Enough irony to build a battleship. Neither of you has any response besides posturing and insults.

    I didn't spend six hours trying to get a horse with wet hooves to drink, out of indolence. I weathered this constant essentialist sneering and conspiratorial emoji wank to explain - this is the legal path. This is what our absurd copyright situation allows and requires. This is what a lot of y'all asked for, whether or not you listened to us saying so.

    I'm not the one who shuffled cards for a fallacy to lie about and then grumped my way out of that conversation. I am, even now, suffering fools to better their understanding of this topic. You are aggressively disinterested. What the fuck are you still doing here?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 5 days ago (6 children)

    It's far too late to put those horses back in the barn.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 5 days ago (4 children)

    "we can't get rid of the Atlantic slave trade it's here to stay"

    Ok buddy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 4 days ago (3 children)

    Lemmy: "If we tiny speck of people make a moral stand and don't use LLMs, they'll give up their stolen content and go away!"

    The theft is done, over, you're not going to get those horses back in the barn no matter how high your horse is. Do you imagine that on some glorious day the entire planet will legislate wiping all training data and say, "Sorry. Let's not do that." Sure. Soon as we get textbook communism working for 8,000,0000,000 people.

    Bullshit like this is why I left lemmy last year. It feels like a bunch of children arguing over their personal version of a perfect world. Bluesky was kinda nice, people with some age and experience and an understanding of real politik. Kinda vanilla as well, but cutesy little quips like yours weren't met with much acclaim.

    Go reinvent the world kid, with no understanding of history or human nature. While you're at it, maybe every museum on the planet can send every artifact back to the original peoples. Uh, gotta put a timeline on "original", but it's the right thing to do! Good luck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments