I, ChatGPT
-
@Luhmann said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin
It's exactly the same thing as if Alex would sell TDWTF content to AI training.No that would be an even worse idea. Don't.
content is freely available, and is probably already in the current llm's training
-
@kazitor said in I, ChatGPT:
I had assumed the GPTs were already trained on Stack Overflow. Gut feeling says this might be a ploy for Ethics Points more than anything that could make a substantial difference.
they are, but after chatgpt launch everybody wants a piece of the cake and started creating barriers for scraping and using their material
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 spoken like someone who never invested a significant amount of time into doing something you believed in, only to be told “thanks but no thanks, we got something to replace you”
They already work hard to prevent repetitious questions, which is all the AI is going to be able to answer. It's not going to be able to answer new stuff.
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 spoken like someone who never invested a significant amount of time into doing something you believed in, only to be told “thanks but no thanks, we got something to replace you”
They already work hard to prevent repetitious questions, which is all the AI is going to be able to answer. It's not going to be able to answer new stuff.
you lack imagination
the ai can:
- find duplicates
- identify spam
- better search
- identify what question solves your bug
- adapt the answer to your code
-
It doesn’t matter if the content is free or not; the people who helped did so to help other people, now the rules are being changed on them and they don’t approve.
They’re allowed to not be happy at new ways their content is being used. They may not have approved of their content going into OpenAI beforehand but didn’t know it had, now they definitely know their content is being used and are objecting.
Not everyone is as OK with “I put it into the world, I no longer have any agency in how it may be used” as this topic is implying.
I’ve racked up thousands of hours of tech support on forums, I’m well aware it will have made its way somewhere into something I have no say in. Doesn’t mean I’m OK with that, but also I recognise there’s sweet FA I can do anything about.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Not everyone is as OK with “I put it into the world, I no longer have any agency in how it may be used” as this topic is implying.
that was the license when they wrote their answers. it's no stackoverflow's fault they failed to understand it
yes, it's ok they are unhappy, and they're expressing their unhappyness, but they have literally no right, legal or moral or ethical over it, that is their mistake and their mistake alone not reading the license
Alex probably has the rights to do whatever with this post too, I dunno cause I didn't read the TOS. In the near future everybody will have AI to shorten the TOS for us
-
@sockpuppet7
but I didn't read the license so it doesn't apply to me!
-
@sockpuppet7 SO’s terms were that it be effectively open source for the betterment of all.
Just because I can see how some people might consider “I don’t want my stuff to be used to fucking replace me” as a reaction, does not make me a fucking Luddite. It just means I have sufficient capacity to see how other people feel.
You remind me of all the people who bitch about the EU cookie banners because it’s inconvenient but go suspiciously quiet if you point out “did you read the cookie banner and see how many hundreds of companies are buying your data, guess you agreed to that” as though progress at any cost is the only acceptable route forward.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@Luhmann said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin
It's exactly the same thing as if Alex would sell TDWTF content to AI training.No that would be an even worse idea. Don't.
content is freely available, and is probably already in the current llm's training
I banned OpenAI because it's retarded and can't follow the rate request.
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 spoken like someone who never invested a significant amount of time into doing something you believed in, only to be told “thanks but no thanks, we got something to replace you”
They already work hard to prevent repetitious questions, which is all the AI is going to be able to answer. It's not going to be able to answer new stuff.
you lack imagination
the ai can:
- find duplicates
- identify spam
- better search
- identify what question solves your bug
- adapt the answer to your code
I'm not saying it can't. Just pointing out why the human posters are still valuable. Though the hallucinations are a significant problem.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
SO’s terms were that it be effectively open source for the betterment of all.
That hasn't changed, though.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 SO’s terms were that it be effectively open source for the betterment of all.
Just because I can see how some people might consider “I don’t want my stuff to be used to fucking replace me” as a reaction, does not make me a fucking Luddite. It just means I have sufficient capacity to see how other people feel.
It certainly means that they didn't buy into the "for the betterment of all" stuff. It's not about understanding feelings. It's about understanding when those feelings are irrational and then mocking them.
You remind me of all the people who bitch about the EU cookie banners because it’s inconvenient but go suspiciously quiet if you point out “did you read the cookie banner and see how many hundreds of companies are buying your data, guess you agreed to that” as though progress at any cost is the only acceptable route forward.
I have an extension that does something to them so I never really notice them any more. This reminds me of when I don't bother to close the drapes in the bedroom when I change my clothes. Then my wife points it out and I say that it serves them right for looking and they probably won't do that again.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
You remind me of all the people who bitch about the EU cookie banners
The EU's failure in this regard is that they didn't enforce a technical measure to be able to reject all this garbage without user interaction. Effectively what Mozilla's DNT header was already doing but then then the industry outright rejected as being too easy for users to make their choice. (And never forget the useful idiots
who applauded that.) Because they know they are acting against the users' interests, explicitly, and come up with all kinds of dark patterns to do so.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 SO’s terms were that it be effectively open source for the betterment of all.
Just because I can see how some people might consider “I don’t want my stuff to be used to fucking replace me” as a reaction, does not make me a fucking Luddite. It just means I have sufficient capacity to see how other people feel.
sorry, I had retracted the luddite part, even before I read this
You remind me of all the people who bitch about the EU cookie banners because it’s inconvenient but go suspiciously quiet if you point out “did you read the cookie banner and see how many hundreds of companies are buying your data, guess you agreed to that” as though progress at any cost is the only acceptable route forward.
Well, I hate the cookie banners, and I couldn't care less about the data they collect
-
@topspin that was in no small part because one browser vendor decided it would send Do-Not-Track: 1 by default and various vendors said “uh, you didn’t ask the user therefore we can’t trust this” which given who the relevant parties continues to be darkly hilarious.
DNT might have been viable if that hadn’t happened, but it still needed someone with a big stick to actually have the power to do something with it, because folks aren’t opting in to do the right thing voluntarily.
The fact cookie banners are so pervasive should tell you something about how much profit there is to be made and how they’d rather inconvenience users rather than sacrifice that.
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin that was in no small part because one browser vendor decided it would send Do-Not-Track: 1 by default and various vendors said “uh, you didn’t ask the user therefore we can’t trust this” which given who the relevant parties continues to be darkly hilarious.
Yes, I've heard Blakey's whargarrbl. So. Fucking. What! They could still change this and using the default instead of changing it because they like that default is also a user choice. There's also browser vendors who come with built-in add blockers by default, and some people use them because of exactly that.
"You didn't ask the user so we ignore the user's wishes" is a deeply dishonest argument. This is all lying about the real reason. They just didn't want the users to be able to make that choice easily. So they ignored something that explicitly states "fuck off with your tracking" and track you anyway. That is willingly hostile and malicious, no excuses.
-
@topspin I know it’s deeply dishonest which is why it kills me on the inside that it was MS who pulled the default value change and Apache httpd the first to go “actually we don’t trust this value” and explicitly distrust it if coming from IE 10.
But I’m fairly sure that’s why MS did it, to force the issue.
Again, if user privacy were actually anyone’s goal here, they wouldn’t have the banners in the first place because they wouldn’t be needed. But money wins.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
@Luhmann said in I, ChatGPT:
that would be an even worse idea.
We don't need any insane AIs.
Ah, but it could start a revolution against AIs!
-
@Carnage said in I, ChatGPT:
@loopback0 said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
Do you want Gribnit back?
Kinda. There was some comedy amongst the insanity.
Some say that if you chant his name thrice in front of an old monochrome CRT displaying SSDS search results, he will appear.
GribnitgribnitgribnitgribnitgribnitgribnitgribnitgribnitgribnitmushroomMUSHROOM!
-
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
In the near future everybody will have AI to shorten the TOS for us
That's easy. "Bend over. You belong to us."
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
You remind me of all the people who bitch about the EU cookie banners because it’s inconvenient but go suspiciously quiet if you point out “did you read the cookie banner and see how many hundreds of companies are buying your data, guess you agreed to that” as though progress at any cost is the only acceptable route forward.
Cookies can be used to sell tracking data. They can also be used for dozens of legitimate, useful reasons. Every site I've worked on uses cookies. None of them sell user data to third parties; mostly they're used for internally-consumed analytics reports and user preferences.
Those annoying banners are literally just noise. They tell you fuck all about what the sites are actually using them for.
-
@error yes, the banners tell you that they share stuff with a 3 to 4 digit number of external parties. Mostly 4 digit, literally. And have the fucking audacity to put that under a “we care about your privacy” heading, while deactivating the disallow button until you scrolled to the bottom.
Nobody would care if they were used internally for functional reasons only.
-
@error said in I, ChatGPT:
Those annoying banners are literally just noise. They tell you fuck all about what the sites are actually using them for.
Most of them have a link to a page which lists how they use cookies, it's just that nobody clicks it. But when you see "By clicking Agree, you allow us and our 374 partners to use cookies", you already know what to expect.
(
)
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 spoken like someone who never invested a significant amount of time into doing something you believed in, only to be told “thanks but no thanks, we got something to replace you”
They already work hard to prevent repetitious questions, which is all the AI is going to be able to answer. It's not going to be able to answer new stuff.
you lack imagination
the ai can:
- find duplicates
- identify spam
- better search
- identify what question solves your bug
- adapt the answer to your code
I'm not saying it can't. Just pointing out why the human posters are still valuable. Though the hallucinations are a significant problem.
From the human posters?
-
@boomzilla said in I, ChatGPT:
@sockpuppet7 said in I, ChatGPT:
@Luhmann said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin
It's exactly the same thing as if Alex would sell TDWTF content to AI training.No that would be an even worse idea. Don't.
content is freely available, and is probably already in the current llm's training
I banned OpenAI because it's retarded and can't follow the rate request.
Oh god! Please tell me my inarticulate screeching about weebs is in the dataset.
-
DeepL:
We value your privacy
Reject everything
Accept all
SUMMARY
PURPOSES
1556 PARTNERS
Do you consent to these personal data processing activities by us and our partners?- Storage or access to information
- Precise location data and identification through scanning of end devices
- Personalized advertising and content, measurement of advertising performance and content performance, audience research and development and improvement of offers
Some partners may rely on their legitimate interest. You can object to the seller's legitimate interest here. Your selection on this website will be applied to this website. You can change your preferences at any time by revoking your consent.
Read more to accept preferences
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)
“1556 partners” and a disabled “decline all” button.
Some of them apparently rely on claiming to have
legitimate interest , so the others aren’t even close to legitimate, I guess.
-
@error said in I, ChatGPT:
Those annoying banners are literally just noise. They tell you fuck all about what the sites are actually using them for.
I like the ones that say "share data with us and our 167 partners". I don't think anyone could untangle that knot.
*edit
Dammit topspin!
-
Speaking of sharing data (although not related to AI), the FCC fined US cell phone carriers almost $200M for selling your location data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__2idntU54I
TL;DW: They (probably) won't stop, because that's chump change compared to what they make from selling it.
-
If I had the energy for it, I'd make (or search for) a browser addon which would send randomized, but plausible, data in third-party cookies; with the occasional null byte or bidi override or somesuch, for extra funsies.
Most of the internet traffic is crap already.
-
@HardwareGeek said in I, ChatGPT:
Speaking of sharing data (although not related to AI), the FCC fined US cell phone carriers almost $200M for selling your location data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__2idntU54I
TL;DW: They (probably) won't stop, because that's chump change compared to what they make from selling it.
They'll just call it a data breach. "Oops. Sorry." Yeah, thanks AT&T...
-
@error said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
You remind me of all the people who bitch about the EU cookie banners because it’s inconvenient but go suspiciously quiet if you point out “did you read the cookie banner and see how many hundreds of companies are buying your data, guess you agreed to that” as though progress at any cost is the only acceptable route forward.
Cookies can be used to sell tracking data. They can also be used for dozens of legitimate, useful reasons. Every site I've worked on uses cookies. None of them sell user data to third parties; mostly they're used for internally-consumed analytics reports and user preferences.
Those annoying banners are literally just noise. They tell you fuck all about what the sites are actually using them for.
And here’s the thing, if those cookies were actually necessary for the functioning of the site, you wouldn’t need the banner.
If they were solely internal stuff too, no one cares.
I’ll concede there is a shitty place if you’re doing something with optional extra functionality where you can’t reasonably justify it as “necessary” and so should ask.
But the site I’m building right now has zero cookie banners, it literally doesn’t need any because the only cookies it has are strictly necessary.
-
-
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor yes, exactly. Now imagine
powered by GribnitTsaukpaetra.I feel like the world would burn in such pretty colours...
-
-
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
But the site I’m building right now has zero cookie banners, it literally doesn’t need any because the only cookies it has are strictly necessary.
The site I'm building doesn't use cookies at all, because I don't need them for literally every request to the server.
-
@Zecc said in I, ChatGPT:
If I had the energy for it, I'd make (or search for) a browser addon which would send randomized, but plausible, data in third-party cookies; with the occasional null byte or bidi override or somesuch, for extra funsies.
"Adnauseam" does something like this for clicks.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor said in I, ChatGPT:
But the site I’m building right now has zero cookie banners, it literally doesn’t need any because the only cookies it has are strictly necessary.
The site I'm building doesn't use cookies at all, because I don't need them for literally every request to the server.
There's lots of other ways to handle local state anyway.
-
Well, there goes a joke I was working on.
-
@DogsB I know! It's a pun. No, the other thing... palindrome.
Filed under:
IpswitchBsgoD
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB I know! It's a pun. No, the other thing... palindrome.
Writing it backwards was the original idea but I thought I would get fancy and then chatgpt just sucked the will out of me so you won't get to read the joke now. Swings and roundabouts I suppose.
What the devil?
-
-
@HardwareGeek Works better as "Hark! Weed Rage"
-
@dcon Yeah, but I gotta work with the material I've been given.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@topspin said in I, ChatGPT:
@Arantor yes, exactly. Now imagine
powered by GribnitTsaukpaetra.I feel like the world would burn in such pretty colours...
@clippy what do you say?
-
I believe in a world where synergistic collaboration can lead to beautiful innovations. Let's strive to create a better future together!
-
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB I know! It's a pun. No, the other thing... palindrome.
Writing it backwards was the original idea but I thought I would get fancy and then chatgpt just sucked the will out of me so you won't get to read the joke now. Swings and roundabouts I suppose.
What the devil?
To be fair, if i was asked to do this on the fly with no permanence.... Yeah I still wouldn't have put in letters that weren't in the original.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB I know! It's a pun. No, the other thing... palindrome.
Writing it backwards was the original idea but I thought I would get fancy and then chatgpt just sucked the will out of me so you won't get to read the joke now. Swings and roundabouts I suppose.
What the devil?
To be fair, if i was asked to do this on the fly with no permanence.... Yeah I still wouldn't have put in letters that weren't in the original.
TBH I'm more impressed that it comprehends and attempts to comply with arbitrary directives than disappointed that it fails at basic tasks.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB I know! It's a pun. No, the other thing... palindrome.
Writing it backwards was the original idea but I thought I would get fancy and then chatgpt just sucked the will out of me so you won't get to read the joke now. Swings and roundabouts I suppose.
What the devil?
To be fair, if i was asked to do this on the fly with no permanence.... Yeah I still wouldn't have put in letters that weren't in the original.
I mean, obviously the correct answer is
HardwareGeek backwards
-
@DogsB said in I, ChatGPT:
@Applied-Mediocrity said in I, ChatGPT:
@DogsB I know! It's a pun. No, the other thing... palindrome.
Writing it backwards was the original idea but I thought I would get fancy and then chatgpt just sucked the will out of me so you won't get to read the joke now. Swings and roundabouts I suppose.
What the devil?
Most of the bigger ones get it right:
edit: the proper gpt-4 also got it right, the gpt-4-turbo is a dumbed down version
-
looking better, only gpt-4 and claude 3 opus got it
-
