Could you hypothetically describe csam without describing an adult with a child’s head, or specifying that it’s a naked child?
That’s what a person trying to generate csam would need to do, because it doesn’t have those concepts.
If you just asked it directly, like I said “horse flying a hangglider” before, you would get what you describe because it’s using the only “naked” it knows.
You would need to specifically ask it to demphasize adult characteristics and emphasize child characteristics.
That doesn’t mean that it was trained on that content.
For context from the article:
The DOJ alleged that evidence from his laptop showed that Anderegg “used extremely specific and explicit prompts to create these images,” including “specific ‘negative’ prompts—that is, prompts that direct the GenAI model on what not to include in generated content—to avoid creating images that depict adults.”
Also: Pretending like I was attacking you for knowing how the technology works is a bullshit move.
I’m complaining at your defence to them, not at your explanation of the technology… But that just shows how willing you are to “spin” things in their defence. Little unpaid footman.
You made an incorrect statement about how the technology worked and I corrected you. You doubled down and I made a more detailed explanation.
You called me a “creep” for this, and again just now call me a “little unpaid footman”.
If anything’s bullshit it’s your making it aggressive when it doesn’t need to be.
I never said their system was perfect, or that they made no mistakes. I said the system does not need csam to generate csam. I explained why their actions weren’t illegal.
You need to work on your reading comprehension if you can’t see how those are different from being a bootlicker.
I was like, how do they know what they have - and you were like “another AI has labelled it all, and every now and then a human checks it’s work”…
It’s AIs all the way down with you.
“Open AI investigated it’s self and confirmed it didn’t have CSAM in the training data”
They couldn’t find out if they wanted to, the training data is too large and the labelling AI isn’t designed to know, or label CSAM.
…and yeah, sitting around and using your time to defend tech-bro billionaires IS creepy. They’re not about to thank you my guy.
“I just understand the technology”
Yeah, and you’re not acknowledging that what I’m saying is accurate. The “labelling AI” can’t recognise and report CSAM, and the Tech Bros don’t have an accurate idea of what they have stored in their training data.
So yeah, your being creepy when you do all these mental gymnastics to defend them…
… it’s just like the claiming the NSA don’t listen to phone conversations, only it’s been revealed they do have human operators hearing bits of conversation.
Your a narc and an apologist, and it’s creepy because it’s misinformation. It’s spin and you’re volunteering your time to defend them.
Again, that’s not how it works.
Could you hypothetically describe csam without describing an adult with a child’s head, or specifying that it’s a naked child?
That’s what a person trying to generate csam would need to do, because it doesn’t have those concepts.
If you just asked it directly, like I said “horse flying a hangglider” before, you would get what you describe because it’s using the only “naked” it knows.
You would need to specifically ask it to demphasize adult characteristics and emphasize child characteristics.
That doesn’t mean that it was trained on that content.
For context from the article:
Let’s face it they have no clue what’s in the training data, because it’s too large to manually check.
…so you’re just making up excuses for them to not be bound by the law…creep.
??? Knowing how stuff works is creepy now? Knowing what the law actually is is creepy?
I think you’re just militantly attached to your own ignorant conception of how the technology works.
Also: Pretending like I was attacking you for knowing how the technology works is a bullshit move.
I’m complaining at your defence to them, not at your explanation of the technology… But that just shows how willing you are to “spin” things in their defence. Little unpaid footman.
You made an incorrect statement about how the technology worked and I corrected you. You doubled down and I made a more detailed explanation.
You called me a “creep” for this, and again just now call me a “little unpaid footman”.
If anything’s bullshit it’s your making it aggressive when it doesn’t need to be.
I never said their system was perfect, or that they made no mistakes. I said the system does not need csam to generate csam. I explained why their actions weren’t illegal.
You need to work on your reading comprehension if you can’t see how those are different from being a bootlicker.
I was like, how do they know what they have - and you were like “another AI has labelled it all, and every now and then a human checks it’s work”…
It’s AIs all the way down with you.
“Open AI investigated it’s self and confirmed it didn’t have CSAM in the training data”
They couldn’t find out if they wanted to, the training data is too large and the labelling AI isn’t designed to know, or label CSAM.
…and yeah, sitting around and using your time to defend tech-bro billionaires IS creepy. They’re not about to thank you my guy.
“I just understand the technology”
Yeah, and you’re not acknowledging that what I’m saying is accurate. The “labelling AI” can’t recognise and report CSAM, and the Tech Bros don’t have an accurate idea of what they have stored in their training data.
So yeah, your being creepy when you do all these mental gymnastics to defend them…
… it’s just like the claiming the NSA don’t listen to phone conversations, only it’s been revealed they do have human operators hearing bits of conversation.
Your a narc and an apologist, and it’s creepy because it’s misinformation. It’s spin and you’re volunteering your time to defend them.