Instead of working on their platform to get discord users to jump ship they decide to go in the same direction. Also pretty sure training LLMs after someone opts out is illegal?
this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
233 points (97.6% liked)
Technology
59111 readers
3735 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wait, discord is also doing this?
Not currently and publically at least. They're feeding your messages into an LLM, https://twitter.com/DiscordPreviews/status/1790065494432608432 but that's not as bad as training one with your messages
- It's not illegal. 2. "Law" isn't a real thing in an oligarchy, except insofar as it can be used by those with capital and resources to oppress and subjugate those they consider their lessors and to further perpetuate the system for self gain
Also pretty sure training LLMs after someone opts out is illegal?
Why? There have been a couple of lawsuits launched in various jurisdictions claiming LLM training is copyright violation but IMO they're pretty weak and none of them have reached a conclusion. The "opting" status of the writer doesn't seem relevant if copyright doesn't apply in the first place.
but IMO they're pretty weak
Well, thankfully, it's not up to you.
If copyrights apply, only you and stack own the data. You can opt out but 99% of users don't. No users get any money. Google or Microsoft buys stack so only they can use the data. We only get subscription based AI, open source dies.
If copyrights don't apply, everyone owns the data. The users still don't get any money but they get free open source AI built off their work instead of closed source AI built off their work.
Having the website have copyright of the content in the context of AI training would be a fucking disaster.
Nor is it up to you. But fact remains, it's not illegal until there are actually laws against it. The court cases that might determine whether current laws are against it are still ongoing.
fucks sake
Customers own their own Customer Data.
Okay, that's good.
Immediately after that:
Slack [...] will never identify any of our customers or individuals as the source of any of these improvements to any third party, other than to Slack’s affiliates or sub-processors.
You'd hope the owner would get a say in that.
mattermost anyone?
An issue with mattermost is that some useful features are behind a paywall, like group calls.
I'd go with nextcloud since all their features are included regardless of if you pay or not
Its used by NASA and the US Air Force so security wise it probably is pretty solid.
Remember when every platform renamed PMs to DMs and everyone who pointed out that they're trying to remove the expectation of privacy was "paranoid"?
I use Slack at work everyday. I suppose this does feel off in some way but I'm not sure I'm the right amount of upset about this? I don't really mind if they use my data if it improves my user experience, as long as the platform doesn't reveal anything sensitive or personal in a way that can be traced back to me.
Slack already does allow your admin to view all of your conversations, which is more alarming to me
The problem is where you said "as long as" because we already know companies AND the AI itself can't be trusted to not expose sensitive info inadvertently. At absolute best, it's another vector to be breached.
It's obvious when you say it like that. I don't like the idea of some prompt hacker looking at memes I sent to my coworker