According to EU law, PII should be accessible, modifiable and deletable by the targeted persons. I don’t think ChatGPT would allow me to delete information about me found in their training data.
ban all European IPS from using these applications
But again, is this your information as in its random individuals or is this really some company roster listing CEOs it grabbed off some third party website that none of us are actually on and its being passed off as if its regular folks information
You’re pretentiously laughing at region locking. That’s been around for a while. You can’t untrain these AI. This PII which has always been publicly available and seems to be an issue only now is not something they can pull out and retrain. So if its that big an issue, region lock them. Fuck em. But again this doesn’t sound like Joe blow has information available. It seems more like websites that are scraping company details which these ai then scrape.
It also doesn't mean it inherently isn't free to use, either. The article doesn't say whether or not the PII in question was intended to be private or public.
Again, the article doesn't say whether or not the data was intended to be public. People post their contact info online on purpose sometimes, you know. Businesses and shit. Which seems most likely to be what's happened, given that the example has a fax number.
If someone had some theoretical device that could x-ray, 3d image, and 3d print an exact replica of your car though, that would be legal. That’s a closer analogy.
It’s not illegal to reverse-engineer and reproduce for personal use. It is questionably legal though to sell the reproduction. However, if the car were open-source or otherwise not copyrighted/patented it probably would be legal to sell the reproduction.
I’m curious how accurate the PII is. I can generate strings of text and numbers and say that it’s a person’s name and phone number. But that doesn’t mean it’s PII. LLMs like to hallucinate a lot.
I actually loved Jezebel, because it was maybe the only news site I encountered (as a dude not particularly in the know), that actually talked about women’s issues like my wife does.
People got very upset that they were opinionated, but that’s the whole point; why would you expect anything else on a site literally named Jezebel?
I definitely see some of the concerns that they have with this GARM stuff, but I also don’t particularly feel like I’ve seen much under the umbrella of the Gawker media group in general that I’d classify as “high-quality journalism”. There are decent articles here and there, but the standard for what qualifies to be published has always struck me as not particularly high.
I get that there’s a place for aggressive journalism, sometimes it’s exactly what’s called for. But Gawker always kind of felt like it was just aggressive for its own sake in order to attract eyeballs. Not to say that they never shed light on anything important, but a lot of the time it seemed like they were tilting at windmills just trying to keep that energy up.
Advertising really doesn’t seem like a great long-term solution for journalism’s funding, though. Nobody really wants ads, and people are increasingly able to just not interact with them. At the same time, nobody wants a paywall either.
Government funding, maybe? Some big public foundation? We certainly need something to prop journalism up financially or it’s just going to keep getting worse.
Honestly I’m fine paying a subscription if the content is good. There’s one local news source that’s free that I’d be happy to pay a reasonable amount to view.
There are plenty of small independent publications and online journalism outlets that survive off donation drives, subscription patrons, and volunteer citizen journalists. There are even totally independent citizen journalists that report on community sources. Unfortunately, honest journalism is something that society currently has a limited carrying capacity for, but that capacity is not zero.
Well, this is just like the CIA or whatever attending Defcon. Google undoubtedly has some ulterior motive, whether it's to poach the best and brightest or to dilute the messaging, etc.
Google are totally into blocking ads. That was the whole catch line for selling WEI. “We’ll block all the random ads for you and keep you safe”. What they didn’t say was that they would replace the blocked ads with Google bought ads.
Its probably some watered down right to repair bill and the only reason apple supported it is so they can claim that theres already a rtr bill when someone wants a proper one.
Probably going to try to do the same thing to this bill that was done to the NY Right to Repair bill: Gavin Newsom will alter the bill slightly just before signing it that leaves a big gaping loophole for companies like Apple.
Does the bill have any provision mandating that parts and repairs be fairly priced (with some reasonable legal definition for “fairly”)? Or is apple going to charge $2000 for a replacement iphone screen part?
The bill would define the following terms: “documentation,” “electronic or appliance product,” “product,” “fair and reasonable terms,” “service dealer,” and “trade secret.”
Microsoft just started selling spare parts for an xbox controller.
Fixing a drifting thumbstick is 80% the cost of a new controller in parts alone. You can fix it for $5 if you go aftermarket and are happy desoldering over 10 points to remove it.
Which, as I understand it, is kinda the point of the bills too. As in, if there is documentation and it’s reasonably easy to dis- and re-assemble, there can be a (bigger) market for spare parts.
The problem is that the thumbsticks are soldered onto the motherboard. Microsoft’s “fix” is replacing the whole motherboard, when the sticks should really be swappable.
In a Nintendo Switch, the sticks are held in by screws and connect via a ZIF connector.
404media.co
Newest