Technology

23 readers

2 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago

Brave appears to be selling copyrighted data for AI training and giving third parties the “rights” to that data, while not disclosing its own robot crawler (www.techmeme.com)

submitted 1 year ago by hhj@kbin.social to c/tech@kbin.social

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] bear 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They will never be capable of filling the role Mozilla has shoehorned them into.

You're probably right that generative AI on its own, even if improved, can never fundamentally solve the truth problem. A probability engine is exactly just that, merely testing the probability of an output given the dataset. But for such a specific use-case as this, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility to build some sort of reverse-lookup system that sanity checks the output before sending it. It'll probably never be suitable for extremely advanced applications, though. But I'm just not thoroughly convinced that this is entirely useless and needs be abandoned just yet.

The behavior of the Mozilla representatives strongly implies it. I have no idea how they intend to make money with this, and they may or may not succeed, but people don’t generally act like this unless they think they can strike it rich by doing so (and don’t care about the harm they’ll cause in the process).

I don't like to assume ill intent just to fill in an unexplained gap. It's entirely possible for someone to just be wrong. Just like I might be wrong, and this is in fact a technological dead end.

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

But for such a specific use-case as this, I don’t think it’s outside the realm of possibility to build some sort of reverse-lookup system that sanity checks the output before sending it.

What kind of reverse-lookup system, exactly? As far as I know, that's impossible without AGI.

I don’t like to assume ill intent just to fill in an unexplained gap. It’s entirely possible for someone to just be wrong.

That doesn't explain the evasiveness. Something's up. Something we won't like when it's revealed.