There are some delicate snowflakes who are pained to leave their safe room echo chambers if content like this exists in the world.

What a surprise, I did not see this coming.

I hope you didn’t hurt your finger on that downvote button, my feelings are very hurt so it was worth it.

My feedback: It is very important

You’re right.

You tried to make an argument addressing my point and decided that, rather than responding, you would try to red herring the conversation onto the topic of your feelings and then, once that didn’t work, are now resorting to setting up strawman positions to attack.

You’re almost due for the dismissive insulting comment declaring the conversation over. I look forward to reading your next output.

I am proposing neither of those things.

The way to effectively use this is to detect scraping through established means and, instead of banning them, altering the output to feed the target poisoned data instead of/in addition to the real content.

Banning a target gives them information about when they were detected and allows them to alter their profile to avoid that. If they’re never banned then they lose that information and also they now have to deploy additional resources to attempt to detect and remove poisoned data.

Either way, it causes the adversary to spend a lot of resources at very little cost to you.

Asking for someone’s position means inquiring about their viewpoint, opinion, or stance on a particular topic, not their emotional state. A “position” refers to a reasoned perspective, such as agreement or disagreement with an idea, rather than how someone feels emotionally. For example, asking “What is your position on climate change policy?” seeks a rational response, not an emotional one. There is no implication of seeking emotional validation; the request is about understanding someone’s intellectual or logical standpoint.

I did not ask how you, or anyone else were feeling. Where did you get that idea?

Do you need emotional validation from strangers on the Internet?

Ok, so let’s go over this.

The topic is this datacenter’s waste products vs chemical plant waste products.

First, Elon was gracious enough to put my data center in the backyards of black people. You know, because white people don’t want their air and water to get wrecked nor their power bills to shoot up exponentially because we’re stealing it all up. It just makes good business sense to target people who are already suffering. It just makes good business sense to target people who are already suffering.

• This is a complaint about location, not about waste products.
• The datacenter in the OP is in North Wales, UK where there are a lot of white people.
• White people are connected to the same power grid as black people, the cost of power isn’t a racial thing.

Want me to do you one even more funny? The lack of power is a real problem because these centers are so unbelievably insatiable. But did Musk get upset? No! He’s just did what any brilliant rich person would do! He installed the most incredible giant gas turbines without consulting anyone first!

Yeah, it sounds like Elon Musk is an asshole who doesn’t make plans and just throws shit up wherever, regardless of the ability of the location to support it. Unless he’s a datacenter that is also not relevent.

The datacenter in the OP is in North Wales and not owned by Elon Musck. It is connected to grid power, not gas turbines. In North Wales, the energy production infrastructure is 50% renewables.

And water? Not a problem! Modern models only take hundreds of thousands of gallons to train and operate. Good thing there aren’t any scarcity issues!

If you notice water at the upper right of the picture, that is the Atlantic Ocean. The Atlantic Ocean is not currently experiencing water scarcity.

You also did not explain how any of those locations would be improved by replacing the datacenter with a chemical plant… which is the entire proposition that this conversation was based on.

It’s really unproductive to make blanket statements that try to end discussion before it starts.

I don’t know, it seems like their comment accurately predicted the response.

Even if you want to see yourself as some beacon of open and honest discussion, you have to admit that there are a lot of people who are toxic to anybody who mentions any position that isn’t rabidly anti-AI enough for them.

Do you think that using ad hominem instead of responding to a person’s point makes you enlightened, pro-social and independent?

It makes you look like another toxic Internet person, indistinguishable from the FUD bots that swarm social media.

We didn’t smash automobiles because horse traders were losing their jobs.

Nobody rioted when Computer became an object instead of a white collar job.

Technology is disruptive, that doesn’t make all technology bad or unethical. It is specific people/organizations that are involved in unethical projects, not the technology itself.

It seems that every time someone mentions ‘AI Bad’, they’re really talking about a person who is being unethical. People simply say ‘AI’ is bad when they mean ‘OpenAI’ or ‘NVIDIA’ or ‘Microsoft’ are unethical.

There are companies that are using ethically sourced data for training AI. For example, Adobe’s generative AI is trained on data licensed from artists explicitly for training AI. VoiceSwap.ai is licensing training data from vocalists and employing the artists for fine-tuning as well as sharing the revenue from the resulting product. Common Corpus is a massive LLM training set made of data that is either licensed or unprotected by copyright (public domain books, for example).

You can tell when you’re talking with someone who has been given the position of ‘AI Bad’, but doesn’t actually understand the moral positions or technological details that form the foundation of that argument by how confidently they repeat some detail that is clearly nonsense to anybody with knowledge of the subject.

Person: Says a thing

Person 2, who disagrees with the thing: YOU’RE A BOOTLICKER!

Super convincing. I’m sure you’re going to win people over to your position if you scream loud enough.

That may be an argument if only large companies existed and they only trained foundation models.

Scraped data is most often used for fine-tuning models for specific tasks. For example, mimicking people on social media to push an ad/political agenda. Using a foundational model that speaks like it was trained on a textbook doesn’t work for synthesizing social media comments.

In order to sound like a Lemmy user, you need to train on data that contains the idioms, memes and conversational styles used in the Lemmy community. That can’t be created from the output of other models, it has to come from scraping.

Poisoning the data going to the scrapers will either kill the model during training or force everyone to pre-process their data, which increases the costs and expertise required to attempt such things.

Well, tell it that if it could post here it could explain its position.

It’s also clearly not the only writing on the subject on the entire Internet.

That a datacenter causes less environmental impact than a chemical plant? I have a lot of reasons to believe that.

The primary one being that the primary waste product for datacenters is water vapor while this chemical plant used extracted bromine from seawater using chlorine oxidation and produced a huge amount of chemical waste including water contaminated by chlorine and bromine.

In a disaster, a damaged datacenter will turn off while a damaged chemical plant will leak toxic and deadly chemicals into the local area.

There is no topic more botted than the AI discussion and I see Lemmy isn’t immune.

It’s hard to argue that a datacenter has more environmental impact than a chemical plant, but I look forward to reading the comments that try.

This looks like this is part of the UK’s Digital Sovereignty plans, so they have their companies data on their land and legal jurisdiction