I wonder if reddit trains AI or allows AI to be trained off users who have not given consent (Which is supposedly the complaint from Reddit against Anthropic in this lawsuit).
For example: users who signed up under a specific version of reddit's TOS, stopped using reddit, and did not accept later version of the TOS allowing their content to be used.
If you search in google with a time-qualifier you'll probably get better results, especially for 'current-event stuff (but it works with nearly anything!)
do your search on Google, then click "Tools" then click the dropdown box which says "any time" and select either a generic time from the picklist or click "custom range" and specify your own date range.
The above works really well for cutting out SEO BS, and it's a great method to get past propaganda or whatever topic & opinion is being pushed (for example: if you search "Haitian Cat" you will get a bunch of results from biased media pushing an agenda - all about September 15, 2024.. however, if you set the time-qualifier end date to "Sep 01, 2024" , bam your results are cleared up!)
more options:
- use a different search engine (this one is paid with a trial - people say it's worth it!): https://kagi.com/
- I use a bookmark manager called raindrop.io - it makes offline copies, indexes , and allows you to tag things (among many other features). Sites which you come across that are especially cool or useful, tag "news source" or "source"- then, when you're looking for stuff - start there. It's a bit of a habit to be cognizant and on the lookout for 'cool sites' but once the ball is rolling it's super easy. This in itself isn't an exact solution but is a great way to build your own reference of sites you appreciate - and much more than a normal bookmark manager which simply saves the title of the page & URL.
- try an AI like perplexity which searches the internet and cites every statement it makes. It will probably cite reddit though-- maybe there's a way to prevent that.
I've been avoiding reddit for years and when it's brought up (especially professionally) I ask for alternative cites / sources.
Skimming through the article, it seems like the extent of this is to require IAAS (Infrastructure) providers to verify the identity of those who are using their services to train AI. It's an attempt to stymie sanctioned or malicious actors, from training AI and especially from hopping between services or using aliases to continue training on their model.
It seems a bit benign and I don't understand the parallels others on this HN discussion are making. Is it that it's a slippery slope or perhaps I'm being naïve in regards to the scope?
Data is submitted voluntarily - I'm curious how thorough the submitted data is and which jurisdictions opt not to report.
I imagine it's not in the interest of public officials to submit data which weakens their authority, undermines or invalidates their positions - and that opposite holds true too.
The data seems less than substantial because it's not thorough nor potentially accurate, even when collected. Perhaps there's substance in comparing data here to data elsewhere to highlight official intent.
For example: users who signed up under a specific version of reddit's TOS, stopped using reddit, and did not accept later version of the TOS allowing their content to be used.