- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Hmmm… A bomb may not actually guarantee significant enough data loss. Particularly if they are following the 3-2-1 backup rule. I wonder what the best way to ensure the most damage to the AI.
It’s just one of the bombs.
Corrupt the training data with illegal numbers
Illegal numbers are so illegal that you just linked a Wikipedia article containing a bunch of them, i.e. not very illegal. For an AI company already skirting copyright law, they’re not a concern at all.
Here’s hoping. crosses fingers
Kropotkin is wrong, the data existed but it was made usable in a new way by methods which would not have existed without this company.
Secondly, open source is not the only ethical form of technology, that’s an inherently biased and simplistic way to think. In fact, having access to some types of tech or information can make the world less safe or more unethical.
Edit corrected sentence, and lol @ downvoters constantly butthurt that their Marxist pov is challenged
open source is not the only ethical form of technology
and
that open source is always ethical tech
are not the same supposition. Or are you maintaining both are correct?
Also, I think the idea here is that any of the new ways if using the pre-existing data are doing nothing new or useful, and are in fact - evil.
I was challenging that open source is always ethical tech. No one should have open source access to destructive tech, for example.
But is that a quality of the open source?
Would the destructive tech be more, less, or equally ethical if it was closed source?
And is one group having access to weapons of a more destructive type than other groups better for the world? Or just better for the better armed group? And is their use of the superior weaponry more moral in any way?
No one should have open source access to destructive tech
I highly disagree, and regardless of my personal opinion this assertion is impossible to enforce anyways. It’s far too easy to create a gun or bomb (i.e. destructive tech) out of common materials and tools you find in a hardware store. Trying to supress any and all destructive would put us back to the stone age
Kropotkin died in 1921 so you’d be explaining it to him using wireless radio or telegram cables or similar.
A newspaperman has invented a new way to transmit the encyclopedia over the radio without you having to visit a library. A machine like a very complicated typewriter takes your cable and returns the entry from the encyclopedia to you immediately. They charge for this service but do not pay the encyclopedia writer, and the ink for the typewriter is made by burning down a forest and polluting a river. The newspaperman also takes the labor of his employees for profit and directs the government in his whims, and frequently changes the output of the encyclopedia to meet his political ends.
While you may disagree those are bad things, it would certainly be consistent with Kropotin’s world view to he against it.
What if you don’t want to make your data usable by AI chatbots, is that not your right?
It is, but that’s not the premise I was challenging. I was challenging the premise that this company did nothing new, or that open source is always ethical tech.
