I’m rather curious to see how the EU’s privacy laws are going to handle this.

(Original article is from Fortune, but Yahoo Finance doesn’t have a paywall)

  • Dkarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It takes so.much money to retrain models tho…like the entire cost all over again …and what if they find something else?

    Crazy how murky the legalities are here …just no caselaw to base anything on really

    For people who don’t know how machine learning works at a very high level

    basically every input the AI is trained on or “sees” changes a set of weights (float type decimal numbers) and once the weights are changed you can’t remove that input and change the weights back to what they were you can only keep changing them on new input

    • DigitalWebSlinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      So we just let them break the law without penalty because it’s hard and costly to redo the work that already broke the law? Nah, they can put time and money towards safeguards to prevent themselves from breaking the law if they want to try to make money off of this stuff.

      • Dkarma@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        No one has established that they’ve broken the law in any way, though. Authors are upset but it’s unclear if they can prove they were damaged in some way or that the companies in question are even liable for anything.

        Remember,the burden of proof is on the plaintiff not these companies if a suit is brought.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The “safeguard” would be “no PII in training data, ever”. Which is fine by me, but that’s what it really means. Retraining a large dataset every time a GDPR request comes in is completely infeasible.