ADeerAppeared

The quality isn't the (main) point, it's the supply-chain relationship.

Suppose our Raccoon finds a fan in the dumpster. Standard electric consumer grade fan.

It might even be a really nice not-garbage fan. It's just been put out free to take on the condition that there's no liability or guaranteed support.

If the Raccoon uses the fan as expected; For personal cooling purposes. There's no problem. If the fan breaks, the original creator says "WONTFIX", the racoon is a little sad but all is fine in the world.

Suppose instead our Raccoon runs a major aircraft manufacturing company. If it were to take this fan and use the fan blade for a turbojet engine. The fan breaks now, a plane crash-lands and people are injured, the big company insists that it be repaired immediately. The original creator says "WONTFIX", and the company's VP of security is outraged. "Do you not understand how serious this is? The fan is used in a major airplane, you must fix it. It's no longer a hobby, you're part of our supply chain!"

Now obviously, were Raccoon-Boeing to use fan blades from consumer fans put out on the road free-to-take, there'd be mass outrage. Obviously the person who gave away their fan isn't liable for the misuse of the thing they gave away. They owe the company nothing. If anything there'd be riots in the streets about the Racoons being this reckless.

So why do we let software firms get away with this?

It's not the AI lying about the date, it's about the people using the content.

One big problem is that Google also lies about dates when you do a 'before' search, so AI spam still shows up even if you filter it out.

Scraping a new dataset without contaminated content is impossible now. There's no authoritative source on the age of any given website. (You can try places like the Internet Archive, but most such archivers aren't interested in handing their data over to AI firms because of the bad PR.)

The only way to ensure you don't have AI content is to use a dataset created before ~2021-2022. This too is hard because all the big ones are illegal to posses as they contain CSAM.

The real answer is that AI developers played themselves. Humanity was creating exponentially more data each year, and by rushing these AI tools out the door, all that data is useless now. By the end of this year there'll be more new "AI-polluted" data on the web made after 2021 than the total amount of "clean" data made up to 2021.

GH interestingly doesn't grant themselves nor others that many rights.

---

  You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.

  This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program.

---

  Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).

  If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking).

---

They don't even include training for copilot (though a dodgy lawyer will likely try to include that as "part of providing the service). 3rd parties only get a license to fork your repo, seemingly not even a license to do anything with that repo. (And hot take: Github should just let people disable the fork button already.)

"Anti-immigration" politics is a red-herring. Look at the UK post brexit. Immigration went up, by more than mainland europe. (And before the invasion of Ukraine)

Even for the far-right political movements, immigration is too favourable to actually stop. They're populists who sell cheap lies rather than actual solutions. Trump's not going to deprive his rural farmer voting blocs nor his big corporate sponsors of their cheap labour. Europe's far-right is even more closely allied with farmers right now.

The populists just virtue signal a bunch without doing anything about the problem.

They are not liable for what the user generates, sure. That is a plausible legal argument.

But these AI systems do not just generate CSAM by happenstance or the user tricking them into doing it. These systems have their training data obtained by scraping everything off the internet. There is a lot of CSAM (and whatever you will call text/literature describing such things) on the internet, and so, in the training data.

OpenAI had some of their Kenyan data tagging partners quit the contract because they had to tag which images and text were CSAM. (With none of the already-insufficient mental health resources afforded to social media moderation staff)

It's so much more than that.

We produce ~77 million tonnes of beef, using (at the 1:25 ratio) 1925 million tonnes of feed.

Africa currently imports most of it's grains, let's take a generous estimate of ~75 million tonnes of grain. Add another 25 million tonnes for their local production.

And we're still off by a factor of 19x.

Food production capacity is a non-issue. Availability to the people who need it is the real problem, and that is primarily about our willingness to aid those who need it and make some personal sacrifices for the greater good.