An update to Google's privacy policy suggests that the entire public internet is fair game for it's AI projects. If Google can read your words, assume they belong to the company now, and expect that they’re nesting somewhere in the bowels of a chatbot.
And yet somehow, they still have the shittiest AI this side of ChatGPT and Claude. (Source: tested PaLM 2 on Poe, and Bard). Checking out the fine tunings of Llama, it doesn't seem like more training is always better. You'll hit a wall. And even tuning seems to be an art at the moment.
They don't need to enforce anything, you do. If you post anything onlline, they'll scrape it. If you have a problem with that, the onus is on you to enforce your copyright (if you have it)
It's not a TOC, you don't have to agree to it. They're just kind of telling you what they feel like they can get away with. I don't see anywhere in the new terms where they outright assert that they own it though, but they just kinda say "Yo, if we can see it, we're going to use it to train AI".
I interpret “public internet” as not including deeper stuff like email, but that doesnt mean gmail does take over with data collection after the transition from “public” to “private” internet.
There has always been a symbiotic relationship between search engines and content site owners. The deal being "l (site owner) will let you index my site to make it easy for people to find my content. In exchange, you (Google) can make money by building user profiles and selling targeted advertising." Conceptually this is no different, except that Google is now using the data to build new applications and businesses - AI rather than ads.
I believe that Google does respect robots.txt (though these need to be well specified and located), so it's relatively easy for site owners to opt out of being indexed. Whether being indexed should be on an opt-out basis (as opposed to opt-in basis) in the first place is perhaps the key question, one I'd argue should have been discussed 20, 30 years ago.
This has been discussed elsewhere, and by people smarter than I, but chat bots are going to start learning from other chat bots and it's going to be less and less reliable over time, no?
Like there is an internet BEFORE ChatGPT, which is about as reliable of data as one could hope to find, and then there is a post day one chatgpt, which the data is already getting polluted by random LLM gibberish. How is google's webscraping going to know if the data it is getting is legitimate human being thoughts, or just random madeup shit from a LLM?
There are experiments with feeding LLMs output of other LLMs and the results are awful. Seems for now they can only generate sensible text if fed human output.
Right, but if they are training all new AI on shit they find online, like this comment, wouldn't that pollute that dataset, considering I generated this comment with AI?
There was an article recently about this (too lazy to search it). It's already starting to happen. If most of the content they train on is the internet and more internet content is created by LLMs without being tagged as AI generated content (can't be guaranteed by all actors), then it's inevitable. High signal training data is out the window.
Then you run into the problem of having outdated information. As more AI generated content pollutes the internet and more time passes the problem will only become more severe.
Exactly, this reads like hysteria. If you've placed your words on a public website, it's a shocked Pikachu moment when someone (or in the case of an AI-in-training something) reads those words. It's basic fair use.
If someone put up a billboard with some text on it and then got angry whenever someone else read it I would question their sanity. Even if that "someone" was the Google street view car.
Yeah, I don't really see the fuss about people's content being used to train AIs. It's not really any different from a human reading your content and using their brain to make something similar.
There's a surprising number of people who seem to think LLMs contain a database of everything it's trained with, and that it just spits out snippets from there. There are also lots of very vocal artists against image generation models who claim that these 5-10 GB models contain all their copyrighted art, claiming that the models just create collages from existing images.
People simply don't understand how these things work.
Oh and they won’t. We had a lengthy verification process where we proved we owned these sites we didn’t want aggregated and they still refused to honor robots.txt.
Add comment