Well, it should be clear to anyone who reads HN that the comments here are not to be taken as the most sensible opinion in all cases. Cynical outlook is not uncommon in some contexts, especially when it comes to Elon Musk & X ... and the thread you linked to is a stellar example of that.
> xAI opens sources models with a 6 month lag, look at Grok 1
That's what happened once, rather than a policy that we can expect to be applied. (Unless I missed some announcement?) Based on "we'll publish the algorithm" which ended up being a one-off partial snapshot, never updated afterwards, I wouldn't hold my breath for the models.
> He owns Twitter, why wouldn't it be okay for him to train on Tweets?
There's a whole thing about having clear opt-in agreement about how your data will be used for EU citizens. Twitter didn't comply here with their hidden opt-out strategy.
You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your incorporated audio, photos and videos are considered part of the Content).
By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals for the syndication, broadcast, distribution, promotion or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use. Such additional uses by Twitter, or other companies, organizations or individuals, may be made with no compensation paid to you with respect to the Content that you submit, post, transmit or otherwise make available through the Services.
Right: you retain ownership, and grant X certain rights to the content. Whether those rights include training AI on the data is legally and morally in dispute. X claims that right in its ToS, but a ToS isn’t law and may be legally invalid, and besides that the ToS system is famously broken in the US. Morally, I think it’s pretty clear that reasonable users did consent to their content being published as a tweet, and did not consent to X recreating the content as their own and taking credit for it.
Clearly does not include a provision to utilize Content for purposes of training an AI model.
In fact, they didn't include any purpose for their own use of the data and following GDPR thus cannot use the data at all. They did include purposes for other companies (syndication, broadcast, etc) which also doesn't include training of AI.
“you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).“
Not sure how anyone could defend that an AI model is not covered by this idea - such a model is easily covered by “distribution methods”.
Nope, the GDPR separates the action you perform on data from the purpose of such action. You need to collect consent for a purpose. X didn't state a purpose for why they would do any of these actions. Thus under EU laws their data collection is likely unlawful.
Adding a new purpose requires additional consent at least in the EU.
IANAL disclaimer, but I believe social media companies very explicitly separate themselves from publishers for the purpose of not being responsible for what users post. They can't have it both ways.
> - No one else stopped development, so why should he?
I thought it was a moral imperative or some such thing to do AI right because it could "destroy humanity"?
Or was that just Musk and the rest of the special people in SV's way of aggrandizing themselves while trying to do something most of them have either no experience in or fail miserably at, which is raise an intelligence to be a responsible actor?
It's not too hard to believe it is a coincidence when the most followed person on a platform shows up in your feed, especially if you follow tech accounts.
It's hard to guess these cards' real performance uplifts. According to Nvidia, H100 is 11x faster than A100, but that's definitely not true in most cases. If Gaudi3 is legitimately 4x faster than Gaudi2, it should be a very good value proposition compared to even the B100. I'm really curious whether Intel will be able to compete with X100 using Falcon Shores or not. Regardless, I don't think Nvidia's margins are sustainable.
