Your claim was so far from the truth of reality, that now, it's incumbent upon you to go back through the chain of faulty reasoning. You took it for granted that a conspiracy theory about suppressing information was true, when actually, the same Gemma model was already open-weighted by the same conspirators who you accuse of keeping Gemma out of regular peoples' reach
But the person you're replying to, just explained to you, how the government already have the relevant data. So it's clearly not about data, because the government already issue his NINO and passport
Edit - I mean, just play it back in your head. The PM is probably watching small boat arrivals and reform polling numbers like a hawk. And here's his idea to fix both problems, and you're saying, actually no, the PM is just doing this to get data on where I go to work, even though they already have my PAYE details
Okay well you don't have any proof, any in general, I would consider it a good use of tax shekels to reduce the number of pro-hamas posts on social media. So until you can dig up any proof, I'm considering this whole post to be a nothing burger
> Of course, Meta can chose examples of actually violating posts removed and show that are counter proof, or even posts that are violating that are not yet removed
No, meta don't need to prove anything to anyone.
It's you who alleges that the content should have stayed up, so what's your evidence?
You're telling me I need to go and read a HRW pdf instead? Okay where is that?
Where in the linked pdf is any evidence that the reported content was actually innocent?
If the content which Israel reported to meta was truly pro-terror, then surely there's no problem here - a nation who is the target of a terrorist group, can spend their taxes reducing pro-terror group content online. It's only a problem if, as the report alleges, the content was not pro-terror, but that's not actually evidenced anywhere
My personal detector feedback is that this is slop, the images have the yellow fake sheen, none of the characters were drawn in an interesting way, and the text font is unreadable. The idea of submitting AI generated slop with 0% human input, and then burying it under 'making of' and not even admitting it here when asked, is a bad sign for me
Edit, to be less rude of me, clearly what you've worked hard on here is a chatgpt prompt which generates a fun comic. Why don't you submit that for discussion/comparison instead of a sample of model outputs without providing the prompt
It's very shocking to me that you would reply in the affirmative.
I think you're saying that companies who host generative AI web services, ought to be legally liable if the ephemeral generative content is illegal.
In your mind, should AI companies try and engineer protection from this huge legal risk? It seems criminally insane for a company to host an AI if they're going to be legally liable for the ephemeral daydream content. You should be shorting goog, meta and msft at the very least, because I make their models generate illegal content every night before bed
No, they generally do not compete on accuracy benchmarks afaik.
GitHub/openai/simple-evals is what I checked here, and no, openai do not compete on accuracy benchmarks as far as I can tell. So I'd be interested in seeing what led you to think that, and also what led you to earlier claim that anyone typing in the complainant's name saw the same hallucination.
>The screenshot from the complainant shows this was not in a search context.
>Of course it does
No, of course it doesn't. Because there's a specific blue button for conducting web searches in chatgpt. And other visual indicators which are not present here.
So when I said "the screenshot shows", I was referring to things we could verify in the image, namely, that the question was not asked within a search context.
The top post you refer to, about Claude, is specifically about the search context which wasn't present here.
> The question shown in the screenshot is "who is Arve Hjalmar Holmen?". That's something someone would type into Google search, it's not "write me a fictional story about a man called Arve Hjalmar Holmen
Llms are daydream machines.
If you open a new window with an llm and ask it "what is ..." or "who is...", then you'll often get a constant-looking but completely false answer. Because that's how llms work. You can ask it, who or what is something you just made up, and it will trip over itself hallucinating sources that prove it
>There is a whole industry who is pushing for a couple of years now to tell us that they work, that they replace humans, that they work for search, etc.
Who are you referring to? Did someone tell you that chatgpt "works for search" without clicking the "search" box?
Also are you sure that AI designers intend for their llms to adopt an authorative tone? Isn't that just how humans normally type in the corpus?
Also, you seem to be arguing that, because the general tone you've been hearing about AI is that "they work for search", that therefore openai should be liable for generative content. However, what you've been hearing about the general tone of discussion doesn't really match 1:1 with any company's claim about how their product works
Maybe a different way of phrasing it would be, if a website embedded a rng generator, and you see the random number "eight", then did the publisher publish the number eight, or did they publish a rng? In my opinion, it's the latter. Similarly if the rng generated the number 666, we wouldn't assume the website is making some kind of biblical commentary. We'd recognise that the rng produced a random generative output, similar to the op situation. So, to impugn the publisher of a random text generator based on the random content .... If chatgpt generates a murder threat, or pro-terorrism content, or otherwise shouts fire in a theater, do you believe openai as the publishers should face arrest?
> This was outputting a lie, presented as a fact, to anyone in the world that searched the name.
I think you are wrong.
From my understanding, the complainant opened a new chat window and typed "who is forename surname?"
The daydream machine then daydreamed some output text, as is it's function.
Likewise, you can go now to any llm and ask it a specific question like "what is the minimal cheese principle?" (Which I've just made up) And many will daydream a consistent answer for you. As is their function
Only a buffoon would be confused by the straightforward logic.