Alternate account for @[email protected]

  • 67 Posts
  • 268 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle








  • It’s big. According to Wikipedia they gained 30.5 million dollars in 2022 and have almost 170 employees - not mentioning probably hundreds of other volunteers. It sounds simple in concept but storing petabytes of data safely and maintaining complex software and hardware for it is impressive. That’s why there aren’t really any alternatives to it.

    They’re also much bigger than just the wayback machine, they have multiple projects like OpenLibrary which is a goodreads alternative and scans books to read online. The IA is also under constant legal fire for archiving copyrighted materials so I bet they spent millions of dollars on that alone.








  • It’s not even copyright, they’re suing for using things they patented, but their patents are extremely general. I kid you not, they have a patent for MOUNTING CREATURES, something hundreds of games have done.

    Abstract: In an example of a game program, a ground boarding target object or an air boarding target objects is selected by a selection operation, and a player character is caused to board the selected boarding target object. If the player character aboard the air boarding target object moves toward the ground player character automatically changed to the state where the player character is aboard the ground boarding target object, and brought into the state where the player character can move on the ground.

    I’m no lawyer so I can’t tell you how well this would hold up in court but it’s ridiculous. See more: https://patents.justia.com/assignee/the-pokemon-company






  • Can you confirm that you think with L3, the result would look completely opposite and the summaries of the AI would always beat the human summaries? Because it sounds like you are implying that.

    Lemmy users try not to make a strawman argument (impossible challenge)

    No, that’s not what I said, and not even close to what I was implying. If Llama 2 scored a 47% then 3.1 would score significantly better, easily over 60% at least. No doubt humans can be better at summarizing but A) It needs someone that’s very familiar with the work and has great English skills and B) It needs a lot of time and effort.

    The claim was never that AI can summarize better than people, it was that it can do it in 10 seconds and the result would be “good enough”. People are already doing AI summaries of longer articles without much complaints.




  • It’s pretty well known at this point, they lied about their initial goals and nothing they’ve done in ages has been “open”. It’s all been closed research that they won’t share because they don’t want anyone else to catch up.

    Also they had a lot of friction with their AI safety department because caring about safety would slow down business.