• @underisk@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    979 months ago

    It’s just a robots.txt flag that explicitly mentions a google user agent string. This is about as effective at stopping AI from training on your data as a “no trespassing” sign hidden behind the hedges of your unfenced lawn is at stopping trespassers.

  • @Mongostein@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    So since what’s available now isn’t actually AI, what do we call it when we do get real AI? Will it be like what happened with HD? With True AI™ followed by Ultra AI™, AI4K™, and so on until we just call them master?

    • @imperator3733@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      99 months ago

      “Artificial General Intelligence” (AGI) seems to be the new term for what used to be considered AI.

      I’m sure they’ll move the goalposts once again whenever “AI” stops bringing in the money and the VCs/Wall Street get ridiculously focused on “AGI” startups and scammers.

    • radix
      link
      fedilink
      English
      279 months ago

      You don’t even need to train the AI to ignore it. You just need to not specifically tell it to pay attention to it.

  • TwoGems
    link
    fedilink
    English
    89 months ago

    Is it technically possible to prevent AI scraping on your website?

  • AutoTL;DRB
    link
    English
    19 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Large language models are trained on all kinds of data, most of which it seems was collected without anyone’s knowledge or consent.

    Now you have a choice whether to allow your web content to be used by Google as material to feed its Bard AI and any future models it decides to make.

    It’s as simple as disallowing “User-Agent: Google-Extended” in your site’s robots.txt, the document that tells automated web crawlers what content they’re able to access.

    “We’ve also heard from web publishers that they want greater choice and control over how their content is used for emerging generative AI use cases,” the company’s VP of Trust, Danielle Romain, writes in a blog post, as if this came as a surprise.

    On one hand that is perhaps the best way to present this question, since consent is an important part of this equation and a positive choice to contribute is exactly what Google should be asking for.

    On the other, the fact that Bard and its other models have already been trained on truly enormous amounts of data culled from users without their consent robs this framing of any authenticity.


    The original article contains 381 words, the summary contains 190 words. Saved 50%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • @j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -49 months ago

    People fundamentally fail to understand what AI is useful for and what it is doing. It is not anything like an Artificial General Intelligence. It is like a better way to search for information and interface with it. Just use open source offline AI, not the proprietary crap. The real issue is not what the AI can create. This is no different than what a person is capable of when they are aware of the same content, albeit code, art, music, etc. Just because I am inspired by something, due to my awareness does not give the original inspirational source a right to my thoughts or products. AI works at the same level. It is an aggregate of all content, but contains none of the original works any more than a person that knows about the paintings and works of an artist and tries to paint something in a similar style.

    The real issue that people fail to talk about is that AI can synthesize an enormous amount of data about a person after prolonged engagement. This is like open port access directly into your subconscious brain and there are plenty of levers and switches it can twist and toggle. Giving this kind of interpersonal access to a proprietary stalkerware system where parts of humans are whored out to the highest bidder for exploitation, that is totally insane. This type of data can manipulate people in a way that will sound like science fiction until it normalizes. Proprietary AI is criminal in its potential to manipulate and exploit especially in the political sphere.

    • 👁️👄👁️
      link
      fedilink
      English
      29 months ago

      There is nothing in LLMs that is able to verify the truth. They should not be used for accurate information unless we make some sort of technological breakthrough on that front. It’s really good at generating plausible text though.

      • @j4k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        People, and the internet are no different. The vast majority of information that exists is incomplete or wrong at some level. Skepticism is always required but assessing any medium by its performance without premeditated bias is the only intelligent approach that can grow with improving technology. Very few people are running the larger models (like a 65B or larger) that they fully control in an environment where they control every aspect of the LLM. I have such a setup on my hardware running offline. On its own my system is ~95% accurate on the tasks I use it for and it is more accurate at these than results I find when searching the internet.

        There are already open source offline models specifically designed to work on scientific white paper archives where every result cites the source from its database.

        Agents are a class of AI where the AI is running a multi-model system and where one model can send the prompt to more specialized models or a series of models equip to check and verify a response and do things like cite sources or verify against a database.