It is literally just the bill that was introduced, directly from the site of the senator that introduced it.
Any news organization or third party source is gonna be pulling from this exact same source, because that’s how all bills are initially found out about.
Not to mention the:
Is this AI?
Lots of weird shit going on in this image.
They did it to him AGAIN? 😭
Same issue here, also stuck at exactly 97%.
For anyone curious, the app on the ICE agent’s phone is an app called Mobile Fortify.
It’s able to tap into all kinds of different federal databases that contain your biometric data, from ID photos to the facial recognition cameras you might have seen pop up at TSA checkpoints or at the boarding area for your flight. (you can, and absolutely should request to opt-out of these when presented with them, as not only is it perfectly legal to do so, but it can often take less time)
You’re not allowed to decline to be scanned (according to ICE, which does whatever it wants), it can also store fingerprint data, and your photo will be stored for 15 years, even if you weren’t matched to a record saying you were here illegally or had a deportation order.
ICE has stated that if the app shows a match, they consider it ‘definitive,’ and will then ignore any other evidence to the contrary provided by the person, including a birth certificate.
So far, there has already been at least one known case of a U.S. citizen being deported based on a faulty facial recognition scan through the app.
Why couldn’t one argue that Nick Shirley commited libel/slander
They could. They being the individuals and organizations talked about. Not the community, bystanders, people affected by food stamps cuts, kids or their parents who go to the daycares, etc.
Their actions did in fact directly impact everyone involved?
“Directly” is doing the heavy lifting here, and that’s why this doesn’t work. Trump cutting food stamps and Nick Shirley’s claims against the daycares are entirely separate actions. Even if Nick Shirley had told Trump directly to cut food stamps, based on all the same lies, he wouldn’t be sued, Trump would be sued for being the one who actually did the cuts.
Did they claim you did something, yes
They claimed some daycares did, not every individual affected by the food stamp cuts, which is another reason why those people can’t sue.
Did they do it with the intention to cause harm, yes.
Unfortunately that’s something a court would have to debate for a very long time, and find hard evidence for. (e.g. messages saying “I know it’s not true but I just hate those people” would be damn near incriminating in their own right)
All harmed should be able to sue
Should? Probably, at least in this instance it seems like it’d be beneficial overall.
Will? That’s another story. The legal system just isn’t set up in a way for that type of thing to work, given what I’ve mentioned previously.
The article seems to be implying that this is a common problem that happens constantly and that the companies creating these AI models just don’t give a fuck.
Not only does the article not once state that this is a common problem, only explaining the technical details of how it works, and the possible legal ramifications of it, but they mention how, according to nearly any AI scholar/expert you can talk to, this is not some fixable problem. If you take data, and effectively do extremely lossy compression on it, there is still a way for that data to theoretically be recovered.
Advancing LLMs while claiming you’ll work on it doing this doesn’t change the fact that this is a problem inherent to LLMs. There are certainly ways to prevent it, reduce its likelihood, etc, but you can’t entirely remove the problem. The article is simply about how LLMs inherently memorize data, and while you can mask it with more varied training data, you still can’t avoid the fact that trained weights memorize inputs, and when combined together, can eventually reproduce those inputs.
To be very clear, again, I’m not saying it’s impossible to make this happen less, but it’s still an inherent part of how LLMs work, and isn’t some entirely fixable problem. Is it better now than it used to be? Sure. Is it fully fixable? Never.
Clearly nobody is distributing copyrighted images by asking AI to do its best to recreate them. When you do this, you end up with severely shitty hack images that nobody wants to look at
It’s actually a major problem for artists where people will pass their art through an AI model to reimagine it slightly differently so it can’t be copyright striked, but will still retain some of the more human choices, design elements, and overall composition.
Spend any amount of time on social platforms with artists and you’ll find many of them now don’t complain as much about people directly stealing their art and reposting it, but more people stealing their images and changing them a bit with AI, then reposting it so it’s just different enough they can feign innocence and tell their followers it’s all their work.
Basically, if no one is actually using these images except to say, “aha! My academic research uncovered this tiny flaw in your model that represents an obscure area of AI research!” why TF should anyone care?
The thing is, while these are isolated experiments meant to test for these behaviors as quickly as possible with a small set of researchers, when you look at the sheer scale of people using AI tools now, then statistically speaking, you will inevitably get people who put in a prompt that is similar enough to a work that was trained on, and it will output something almost identical to that work, without the prompter realizing.
Why do you need to point to absolutely, ridiculously obscure shit like finding a flaw in Stable Diffusion 1.4 (from years ago, before 99% of the world had even heard of generative image AI)?
Because they highlight the flaws that continue to plague existing models, but have been around for long enough that you can run long-term tests, run them more cheaply on current AI hardware at scale, and can repeat tests with the same conditions rather than starting over again every single time a new model is released.
Again, this memorization is inherent to how these AI models are trained, it gets better with new releases as more training data is used, and more alterations are made, but it cannot be removed, because removing the memorization removes all the training.
I’ll admit it’s less of a “smoking gun” against use of AI in itself than it used to be when the issue was more prevalent, but acting like it’s a non-issue isn’t right either.
Generative AI is just the latest way of giving instructions to computers. That’s it! That’s all it is.
It is not, unless you consider every single piece of software or code ever to be just “a way of giving instructions to computers” since code is just instructions for how a computer should operate, regardless of the actual tangible outcomes of those base-level instructions.
Generative AI is a type of computation that predicts the most likely sequence of text, or distribution of pixels in an image. That is all it is. It can be used to predict the most likely text, in a machine readable format, which can then control a computer, but that is not what it inherently is in its entirety.
It can also rip off artists and journalists, hallucinate plausible misinformation about current events, or delude you into believing you’re the smartest baby of 1996.
It’s like saying a kitchen knife is just a way to cut foods… when it can also be used to stab someone, make crafts, or open your packages. It can be “just a way of altering the size and quantity of pieces of food”, but it can also be a murder weapon or a letter opener.
Nobody gave a shit about this kind of thing when Star Trek was pretending to do generative AI in the Holodeck
That would be because it was a fictional series about a nonexistent future that didn’t affect anyone’s life today in a negative way if nonexistent job roles were replaced, and most people didn’t have to think about how it would affect them if it became reality today.
Do you want the cool shit from Star Trek’s imaginary future or not? This is literally what computer scientists have been dreaming of for decades. It’s here! Have some fun with it!
People also want flying cars without thinking of the noise pollution and traffic management. Fiction isn’t always what people think it could be.
Generative AI uses up less power/water than streaming YouTube or Netflix
But Generative AI is not replacing YouTube or Netflix, it’s primarily replacing web searches. So when someone goes to ChatGPT instead of Google, that uses anywhere from a few tens of times more energy to a couple hundreds more.
Yet they will still also use Netflix on top of that.
I expect you’re just as vocal about streaming video, yeah?
People generally aren’t, because streaming video tends to have a much more positive effect on their lives than AI.
Watching a new show or movie is fun and relaxing. If it isn’t, you just… stop watching. Nobody forces it down your throat.
Having LLMs pollute my search results with plausible sounding nonsense, and displace the jobs of artists I enjoy the art of, is not fun, nor relaxing. Talking with someone on social media just to find out they aren’t even a real human is annoying. Trying to troubleshoot an issue and finding made up solutions makes my problem even harder to solve.
We can’t necessarily all be focusing on every single possible thing that takes energy, but it’s easy to focus on the thing that most people have an overall negative association with the effects of.
Two birds, one stone.
I’m honestly not even sure it’s deliberate.
If you give a probability guessing machine like LLMs the ability to review content, it’s probably just gonna be more likely to rank things as you expect for your search specifically than an algorithm made to extremely quickly pull the most relevant links… based on only some of the page as keywords, with no understanding of how the context of your search relates to each page.
The downside is, of course, that LLMs use way more energy than regular search algorithms, take longer to provide all their citations, etc.
Unfortunately that just isn’t something you can really sue for.
You can sue the administration putting the rules in place, but you can’t sue someone for saying something that’s then picked up by another person, and another, and so on until the president happens to hear about it.
It’s why, for example, financial sites will always have the disclaimer “this is not financial advice, seek the advice of a licensed financial professional, etc, etc”, because financial harms are often covered, (while other things affected by lies are not in most circumstances) when that lie is something you took action on, and that action caused you harm (e.g. “this stock is going to double tomorrow”, you buy it, it crashes)
But you can’t sue when that lie caused someone else to do something that indirectly caused you harm. (e.g. “this stock will crash in a week”, billionaire sells a ton of the stock, your retirement portfolio drops in value) In that case, only the billionaire would be eligible to sue the person who lied to them.
You might be able to sue Nick Shirley if you ran a daycare business and his false claims about your daycare caused your daycare to get attacked, but you couldn’t sue him if he lied about a daycare down the road and mobs started attacking every daycare in town because they just assumed all of them were at fault, and you certainly couldn’t sue if the claims he made then got to the social media feeds of some locals, which then caused local food banks run by those locals to stop offering food because they thought there’s a chance it could be obtained by scammers instead of those in need.
Seconded on Framework. I’ve got the more performant (but more heavy, large, and expensive) 16, but for most people the 13 will be perfectly usable. The newer 12 model also seems pretty decent and is a bit cheaper.
They’ve kept their RAM prices relatively stable too, but if you already have other RAM lying around you can just bring your own and save yourself the money. Same for the SSD.
The main downside is they’re gonna be quite expensive upfront compared to alternatives, so I wouldn’t recommend them to someone price-sensitive, especially in the current economy.
The main benefit is that since they’re so modular and upgradable, you’ll save money down the line on repair services, replacement parts, or just the cost of buying a whole new device because one component broke that they don’t sell replacements for.
The irony that the meme has multiple popups about AI being bad while the entire meme is AI-generated.
Agreed, that’s funny as hell