Tbh that is an overall miniscule number and I’d say it’s not representative (based on my own occasional visits to that shithole through xcancel.com). It’s a question what they even counted as hate speech. Openly calling for the death of some minority probably counted, but did all those “just noticing things” barely-concealed dogwhistles count?

Wait, maybe I should read the article before replying to you…

The study measured overt hate speech, the meaning of which was clear to anyone who saw it – speech attacking identity groups or using toxic language. It did not measure covert types of hate speech, such as coded language used by some extremist groups to spread hate but plausibly deny doing so.

Today, the court found (among other things), that a few thousand of the summaries that Ross’s AI produced are way too similar to Westlaw’s summaries for it to be a coincidence.

This is probably just inevitable when your dataset is not large enough. I would be interested in seeing the LLM’s output compared against the original texts; I do remember the early ChatGPT producing some borderline copies of sentences that you could find online (with one or two words changed).

But people still complain about CGI in film, likely for the same reason it was criticised in the past that you mention - it looks like ass, if done cheaply (today) or with early underdeveloped tech (back in the past). Similarly so, the vast majority of AI-generated images look lazy, generic (duh) and basically give me the “ick”.

Yeah, maybe they’ll get better in the future. But does that mean that we can’t complain about their ugliness (or whatever other issue we have with them) now?

It’s not Meta vs us, but opensource vs Google and Openai.

I never said it’s Meta vs us. It’s Meta vs (in this particular case) the book publishing industry. You can’t reduce the whole situation to open source vs closed source, there’s other “axes” at play here as well.

They are being sued for copyright infringement when it’s clearly highly transformative

They downloaded the entire Libgen and more. Going by the traditional explanations of piracy, that’s like stealing several hundred bookstores worth of books all at once, and then claiming it’s alright because your own writing is not plagiarised from any of the books you’ve stolen. (Piracy is not the same as actual stealing of course, but countless people have been being legally bullied and ruined with that logic.) Meta also got its data from Internet Archive; unless they only obtained their materials that are public domain or under a similar license, they’ve obtained a lot of material that IA has been sentenced for allowing unlimited access to back in 2020 (if you’ve followed the Hachette v. Internet Archive case). The brainfucking conclusion of your and Facebook’s case is that using illegal services is perfectly legal as long as you sufficiently transform the results of the illegal activity.

The rules are fine as is

Actually they’re not. Copyright law is insanely restrictive, and I don’t think you’ve dealt much with media if you think it’s fine (but I don’t wish to delve into this further as it’s beyond the scope of discussion).

Meta isn’t the one trying to change them

Of course they’re not trying to change them, that’s the point, they will get away with breaking them while being perfectly fine with other actors not being able to do so.

If the existence of open source LLMs hinges on the benevolence of one of the few most cancerous tech companies in the world, maybe they’re not really worth it?

This isn’t about “heroes” and “villains”. Facebook has been and has stayed the “villain”, they’ve done something colossally illegal that any mere mortal would be sued to death for (by an another “villainous” instance, the media system that has made piracy a necessity in the first place), and they’re hoping to get away with it simply on technicalities and by having more money for better lawyers. Rules are rules, if you don’t like them maybe Facebook should try to change them (and not just for themselves, but for the rest of us too)?