Someone was probably mean to them but it wasn't her. She is also not the first to be attacked.

She described finding herself suddenly surrounded by the pack after they “jumped out” from a drain in Perdana Park at about 6am local time.

“At first, I thought it was a cat, but the creature jumped out and bit me while I was running, and there were many of them ... I could not even stand up when it happened,” she told local media.

Might as well bolt the car down. They'll probably get the same enjoyment out of it, just sitting in it in the rain and staring forward.

"But honey, the car took me to the strip club, it isn't my fault"

I'd start eating apples too

I'll be the first to praise a bill that is actually aimed at helping artist. I'm just being realistic, everything being proposed is catered towards data brokers and the big AI players. If the choice is between artist getting screwed, and artists and society getting screwed, I will choose the former.

I understand it needs to happen but doing the opposite and playing into openAIs hand doesn't really help imo.

I got mine cat ears and she got mad at me.

No regulations is going to force them to retroactively take their current models offline.

Public facing doesn't mean open source.

Never said it was but public facing means you can scrape and use it for ml projects. This has already been decided in courts of law. You can't use data with personal information or data which needs an account to access. Peruse kaggle for a bit, it's all scraped datasets.

do you have any idea who I am

I literally don't, I'm assuming you are part of the 99.999 % of population that didn't get upset just like I assume you have arms and legs.

Did you get upset about translators online when it happened?

I'm also assuming you use AI on a weekly basis like practically everyone else else.

You can give me a detailed biography and a list of every device, software and app you use, and I'll stop assuming. Its fine if I'm wrong, point it out but it feels like I'm assuming correctly and instead of admitting it, you would rather get offended.

the open source bit

Paying 20x more than it currently costs to train a model will affect how many models are trained and given away for free.

public domain works, it most definitely is enough

Not enough to give a usable and competitive product. What's the point of gimping open source so openai cam get all that profit. The jobs will still be lost regardless of if we can run these models on our computer or if a subscription service is the only option.

Artists and writers already struggle more than your usual workers.

I can empathize, I know it sucks. But regulations won't change any of that. Deviant art will sell its dataset, the artists won't be compensated and they will still have a hard time because these tools will still be available.

And please don't call me "mad"

You commented under my post with a trite catch phrases. The tone of your comments aren't very nice. I don't know you, I'm going off of how you are saying it and it's coming off as angry.

I couldn't give less of a shit what open ai wants, I'm not fighting for open ai, I'm fighting for all the artists

What you want and what openai want are the same thing. Regulations directly benefit them by giving them and Google a easy peasy monopoly. Artists are never getting a dime out of any of this, all the data is already owned by websites and data brokers.

open ai should be investigated for profiting from data they acquired through the loophole of being non-profit.

This is patently false, there isn't a loop hole. Almost all ml projects use public facing data, it's accepted and completely legal since it's highly transformative. What do you think translation software or Shazam uses? You probably already use AI multiple times a week. I'm guessing you didn't get mad when all the translators lost their job a decade ago.

What do any of the concerns over the way data acquisition happens have to do with open source?

How can a company actually open source anything if the costs are so insanely high. It's already above a million in compute power for a foundation model, how many open source projects do you expect if reddit or getty gets to tack on an other 60 million. Even worse, Microsoft and Google will absolutely pay a premium to keep it out of the hands of their competition. And no, there is simply not enough data in the public domain and most of it shit tbh.

You are missing the forest for the tree and this is by design. There's a reason you are bombarded every day by ai bad articles, it's to keep you mad about it so you don't actually think about what these regulations mean.

The worst part is the scenario is mildly believable knowing our police force.

You are being manipulated as to think giving all the power to big data and big AI companies while squashing open source is in your best interest.

Don't do it at all isn't an option. Doing it "ethically" means websites like Getty, Deviant art, Adobe getting a fat payday while giving our whole economy to Google and Microsoft. There's potential serious job loss coming our way, and in your perfect world, all of those jobs lost would go straight into OpenAis or Googles pocket as a subscription service since any other option wouldn't be afford to build a model.

It is regulatory capture.

Please actually try to understand my points instead of knee jerk reacting all over the place because of their media campaign. OpenAI wants regulations, anthropic got caught literally sending a letter to California telling them they approve the new bills.

I'm being pragmatic, I know any regulation is just meant to build a moat and kill open source, I know the artists are never going to get paid either way. I'd rather not have 2-3 subscription services be our only option and kill open source for what amount to literally no gain for individuals.

Reddit got paid 60 mil for their data, I posted a shitload of content back in the day and still haven't gotten a dime. I'm sure companies like Getty will do the right thing though, right?

I'm sorry if I'm being harsh but you are being a mouthpiece for the people you hate.

I read the article a bit to fast, you are completely right.

For anyone wondering, here is the relevant bit:

The platforms learn what the student excels in and what they need more help with, and then adapt their lesson plans for the term.

Strong topics are moved to the end of term so they can be revised, while weak topics will be tackled more immediately, and each student's lesson plan is bespoke to them.

You make a fair point and a tool made specifically for this would probably be a real boon for teachers, but I doubt they incorporated it into their system.

I'm imagining something slapped together. Basically just an AI voice assistant rewording course material and able to receive voice inputs from students if they have questions. I doubt they even implemented voice recognition to differentiate between students.

Edit: I'm imagining it wrong, every student gets his own AI.

That said time will tell and if it shows a bit of promise, it will probably be useful for homework help and what not in the near future. It just seems early to be throwing it in a class. At least, it isn't a public school where parents wouldn't have a choice.