Our discussion was never about the term factuality. You’ve just now raised that term for the first time in this discussion. You said search engine. They are in fact searching and reconstructing data based on a probabilistic data space.

…and there are plenty of examples of search engines being sued for the types of data they’ve explored or digitized.

…also the inference that search engines are “accurate” or don’t serve up misinformation, and manipulated data is foolish.

No, they’re helping their team mate. The one who gives them tax breaks and deregulates the restrictions on what they can do, with data.

They’re on the same side. Ideology is the lie. Class warfare is the truth.

It’s searched in training, tagged for use/topic then that info is processed and filtered through layers. So it’s pre-searched if you will. Like meta tags in the early internet.

Then the data is processed into cells which queries flow through during generation.

99% of what it generates doesn’t come from anywhere in particular, and you wouldn’t find it in any of the sources which were fed to the model in training.

Yes it does - the fact that you in particular can’t recognize from where it comes: doesn’t matter. It’s still using copywrited works.

Anyways you’re an AI stan, and defending theft. You can deny it all day, but it’s what you’re doing. “It’s okay, I’m a software engineer I’m allowed to defend it”

…as if being a software engineer doesn’t stop you from also being a dumbass. Of course it doesn’t.

“data gathering” and “training data” is just what they’ve tricked you into calling it (just like they tried to trick people into calling it an “intelligence”).

It’s not data gathering, it’s stealing. It’s not training data, it’s our original work.

It’s not creating anything, it’s searching and selectively remixing the human creative work of the internet.

They are. They record the data, stealing it. They search it (or characteristics of it), and reprint it (in whole or in part) upon request.

Viewing it as something creative, or other than a glorified remixing machine is the problem. It’s a search engine for creative works they’ve stolen, and reproduce parts of.

They search the data-space of what they’re “trained” on (our content, the content of human beings), and reproduce statistically defined elements of it.

They’re search engines that have stolen what they’re “trained on”, and reproduce it as “results” (be that images or written text, it has to come from our collective data. Data we created). It’s theft. It’s copywrite fraud. Same as google stealing books (which they had to he sued over the digitizing of, and enter into rights agreements over).

Searching and reproducing content they’ve already recorded (aka stolen without permission), is absolutely part of what they are. Part of what they do.

Don’t stan for them or pretend they’re creative, intelligent, or doing anything original.

The real lie is that it’s “training data”. It’s not. It’s the internet, and it’s not training - it’s theft, it’s stealing and copying (violating copyright). Digital stealing, and processing into a “data set”, a representation or repackaging of our original works.

All the search engines search the same internet, find similar text, output it using similar formulas.

Nope, my bet is they set it based on the name alone and aren’t even aware it’s part of Australia.

Probably went: “Norfolk Island? Sounds like somewhere we can push around, 29%”.

They’re not sending their best people.

Pants used to be two parts that were joined by lacing them together like shoes at the crotch. So weaving lashed together from the belly button to the groin to the ass and back up to the lower back.

I believe puffy white undershorts would be worn underneath, and sometimes a codpiece.