What’s the point of a summary that’s longer than the article itself?

hmm, true enough. But in my mind there’s a clear difference between showing information unedited and referring to its source, and this.

That’s a good point, that muddies the waters a bit. Makes it hard to say wether it’s spouting info from the web or if it’s data from the model.

I can’t comment on actual legality in this case, but I feel handling personal data like this, even from the open web, in a context where hallucinations are an overwhelming possibility, is still morally wrong. I don’t know the GDPR well enough to say wether it covers temporary information like this, but I kinda hope it does.

Maybe he has a insta profile with the name of his kids in his bio

Irrelevant. The data being public does not make it up for grabs.

‘Personal data’ means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’);

They store his personal data without his permission.

also

Information that is inaccurately attributed to a specific individual, be it factually incorrect or information that in reality is related to another individual, is still considered personal data as it relates to that specific individual. If data are inaccurate to the point that no individual can be identified, then the information is not personal data.

Storing it badly, does not make them excempt.

then again

but it also mixed “clearly identifiable personal data”—such as the actual number and gender of Holmen’s children and the name of his hometown—with the “fake information,”

The made up bullshit aside, this should be a quite clear indicator of an actual GDPR breach

No I’m not, that part is absolutely hallucinated. Where the problem comes in is that it then output correct personal information about him and his children. A to me clear violation of GDPR.

but it also mixed “clearly identifiable personal data”—such as the actual number and gender of Holmen’s children and the name of his hometown—with the “fake information,”

Your still placing more intent and facts into those processes than actually exist.

No? When they train AI’s on data they lose control of that data. If the data is sensitive, they aren’t being responsible.

GPT models are as you say dumb statistical models, I agree. But in its weights are encoded ghost images of its training data. The model being dumb is not sufficient to make the data storing itself defensible in my opinion.

It’s not unreadable, it doesn’t exist.

Then what do you mean trained AI models are?

The ai model is trained on data and encodes unknown parts of that data in its weights.

This is data storage. Unmanageable, almost unknowable data storage, but still data storage.

If it didn’t store data it couldn’t learn from its training.

deleted by creator

The fact you chose to make your data storage unreadable, doesn’t relieve you of the responsibilities inherent to storing the data.

Throwing away my car key won’t protect me from paying parking tickets i accrue while being physically unable to move my car.

21%

What the fuck

My condoleances

hahah everything is relative I guess.

the 5g standard includes many frequencies, including long range 2g-like ~400Mhz ones

America is too dependent on tech developed and operated by the american military?!

the fuck?

do you mean github or do you actually mean git?

precisely, which is why they cannot lie, just respond with no real grasp of wether what they output is truth or falsehoods.

everything is semantics.

Lying is telling a falsehood intentionally

LLM’s clearly lack the prerequisite intentionality

not really no. They are statistical models that use heuristics to output what is most likely to follow the input you give it

They are in essence mimicking their training data

deleted by creator