I'm in the same boat. The way it's been used until now feels like mindlessly malnourishing the planet and the society. The AI economic bubble burst will be brutal, though.
Only the ones pushing medical/astronomical/scientific analysis of huge swathes of data that would be too much for a human to go through are acceptable in my mind.
Any company that's pushing a chatbot/'picture bot'/website generator/scalper/search engine can suck peanuts out of my taint
You can't trust an inherantly untrustworthy industry.
The problem is that to make a good AI, you need a lot of input and we know from leaks and reports that many/most of the major players deliberately ignored copyright to train their models. If it was reachable, they used it. Are using it. Will use it. Like Johnny 5, there's no limit to the data they want, or that their handlers want to feed them with. They're the Cookie Monster at a biscuit factory.
So when the question of trust comes up, you'd have to be pretty forgiving to overlook that they're built on foundations of theft, and pretty naive to assume these companies have suddenly grown ethics and won't use your data and input to train with, even when you're using commercial systems that promise they won't.
Even in the event that there is an ethical provider that does their utmost to ensure your data doesn't migrate (these do exist, at least in intention), this is an incredibly fast moving, ultra-competitive market where huge amounts of data are shifted around constantly and guardrails being notoriously hard to accurately define, let alone enforce. It's inevitable stuff will leak.
It depends on your meaning of trust, trust in the answers, trust in your privacy, what kind of trust are we talking about? If we are talking about trust in the accuracy or usability of the data it responds with, I would say I trust copilot, grok, Claude, Lumo, and finally Gemini -- in that order. However, if we are talking about trusting them with your data to stay private, that is a big 'ol zero because none of them are private (Lumo might be the most private but I still don't trust it 100%).
My job asks us to use AI agents so I have been playing around with paid licenses on all of these (Lumo was tested on my personal computer)
MIRI seems to have their collective head on straight. i'd at least trust them more on the subject of AI than any of the blood swilling oligarchs running the big ai companies these days.
Ditto, I have a year of Gemini Pro, and a year of Perplexity Pro for free, but after using Claude for a month I've come to realize that Gemini is a moron, and Perplexity is just as bad.
Claude isn't heavily sanitized, Anthropic doesn't delete old chats it views as sensitive.
21 Comments
Earthman_Jim@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 219d
Nope.
moistracoon@lemmy.zip · 13 pts · 219d
selokichtli@lemmy.ml · 1 pts · 218d
I'm in the same boat. The way it's been used until now feels like mindlessly malnourishing the planet and the society. The AI economic bubble burst will be brutal, though.
Blackfeathr@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 219d
None.
ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 219d
What's an AI organisation? 🤔
retype@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 219d
Probably an organization that had copilot shoehorned into. 😂
DFX4509B@lemmy.wtf · 9 pts · 219d
No.
NihilsineNefas@slrpnk.net · 6 pts · 219d
Only the ones pushing medical/astronomical/scientific analysis of huge swathes of data that would be too much for a human to go through are acceptable in my mind.
Any company that's pushing a chatbot/'picture bot'/website generator/scalper/search engine can suck peanuts out of my taint
Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 219d
I trust all of them to be a criminal syndicate.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 5 pts · 219d
Mistral
The world needs more open source LLMs
kadu@scribe.disroot.org · 9 pts · 219d
The world needs no more slop, open or not.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 4 pts · 219d
You do understand what AI has meant for life sciences? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_enkgH6Vrxk
kadu@scribe.disroot.org · 10 pts · 219d
I'm a master in bioinformatics. Yes, I am aware.
AI for folding a protein is not a LLM.
nymnympseudonym@piefed.social · 0 pts · 218d
Fine' it's a pLM not an LLM.
It still uses neural networks and backprop and attention heads. It's not like it's radically different computing paradigm FFS.
kadu@scribe.disroot.org · 2 pts · 218d
I don't think you understand why we hate LLMs. Hint: not the architecture.
sylver_dragon@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 219d
I trust every AI group to do their level best to separate me from my money. Beyond that, I wouldn't trust them with a stolen identity.
WhatGodIsMadeOf@feddit.org · 3 pts · 219d
There aren't any organizations at all that I trust... At all.
digdilem@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 218d
You can't trust an inherantly untrustworthy industry.
The problem is that to make a good AI, you need a lot of input and we know from leaks and reports that many/most of the major players deliberately ignored copyright to train their models. If it was reachable, they used it. Are using it. Will use it. Like Johnny 5, there's no limit to the data they want, or that their handlers want to feed them with. They're the Cookie Monster at a biscuit factory.
So when the question of trust comes up, you'd have to be pretty forgiving to overlook that they're built on foundations of theft, and pretty naive to assume these companies have suddenly grown ethics and won't use your data and input to train with, even when you're using commercial systems that promise they won't.
Even in the event that there is an ethical provider that does their utmost to ensure your data doesn't migrate (these do exist, at least in intention), this is an incredibly fast moving, ultra-competitive market where huge amounts of data are shifted around constantly and guardrails being notoriously hard to accurately define, let alone enforce. It's inevitable stuff will leak.
HurlingDurling@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 219d
It depends on your meaning of trust, trust in the answers, trust in your privacy, what kind of trust are we talking about? If we are talking about trust in the accuracy or usability of the data it responds with, I would say I trust copilot, grok, Claude, Lumo, and finally Gemini -- in that order. However, if we are talking about trusting them with your data to stay private, that is a big 'ol zero because none of them are private (Lumo might be the most private but I still don't trust it 100%).
My job asks us to use AI agents so I have been playing around with paid licenses on all of these (Lumo was tested on my personal computer)
juliebean@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 219d
MIRI seems to have their collective head on straight. i'd at least trust them more on the subject of AI than any of the blood swilling oligarchs running the big ai companies these days.
FlyingSpaceCow@lemmy.ca · -2 pts · 219d
What do you mean trust? I prefer Anthropic/Claude for most things.
PoliteDudeInTheMood@lemmy.ca · 0 pts · 219d
Ditto, I have a year of Gemini Pro, and a year of Perplexity Pro for free, but after using Claude for a month I've come to realize that Gemini is a moron, and Perplexity is just as bad.
Claude isn't heavily sanitized, Anthropic doesn't delete old chats it views as sensitive.