FaceDeer

It’s also going to make it really easy to take down the content you don’t like, just accuse it of being AI and watch the witch hunting roll in. I’ve seen plenty of examples of traditional artists getting accused of using AI in other forums, I don’t imagine this will be any different.

So “I know it when I see it” rules, rather than anything rigorously defined.

Assuming this gets any traction at all the witch hunts will be rampant.

I think that’s exactly what he’s saying.

There is. luarocks is basically the “pip” equivalent for lua, it installs packages (called “rocks”) and manages dependencies. These packages can extend lua with all sorts of practical capabilities.

I do have to give kudos to the mods here, though. Even though my comment was extremely unpopular they’ve removed the responses to it where people were outright insulting me for making it.

It may surprise you to learn that I’m not actually involved in making this decision. I’m not in the EU at all so not even in a voting capacity.

This is the original commenter justifying why the EU is attempting to loosen their privacy laws.

Not justifying why, explaining why. I was giving the reason why I think they’re doing this.

Lots of people hate that it’s being done, so any reasoning behind it is being interpreted as support for it. But I’m not in the EU, I have no skin in this game at all one way or the other, it doesn’t matter to me whether this change is made. I’m just pointing out why I wasn’t surprised this change was made. The GDPR is hindering AI training and AI is a really big thing right now. The AI training stuff wasn’t mentioned in the summary so my mention in the comments is presenting something that other readers might not be aware of.

The response has frankly been ridiculous. I didn’t include the obligatory “oooh, I hate AI so much!” Flags in my comment, and so this has turned into a huge waste of time as everyone piles on about that rather than about the actual changes to the GDPR the thread was supposedly about.

But you don’t understand, we all hate AI so much that this must be evil somehow.

Yeah, the downvote button isn’t even being used as an “I disagree with this” button in this case, it’s an “I hate the general concept this comment is about” button. And now you’re getting downvoted too for pointing that out.

Guess I should have just said “boy howdy do I ever hate AI, good thing it’s a bubble and everything will go right back to the way things were when it pops” and raked in the upvotes instead.

Deepseek was trained from scratch.

That aside, you’re basically describing the second option I presented; letting everyone else do the AI thing instead.

I wrote:

You appeared to be arguing that there was some other reason, so I was asking what you thought that reason was.

Emphasis added. I only asked questions to clarify what you were saying, since it was unclear.

Weakening regulations doesn’t change this behaviour, just makes it legal

Which, in turn, makes it easier to do.

If you don’t think it makes it easier then we’re back at square one, you don’t seem to be presenting any reason why this change would be made.

No I’m not, I was explaining why I thought they changed it. You appeared to be arguing that there was some other reason, so I was asking what you thought that reason was.

As it turns out, though, you’re saying they changed it for exactly the same reasons I said they were changing it. To let them more easily train AI on that data. So that leaves me wondering what exactly the point of all this was.

So you are saying that weakening these regulations makes it easier for these companies to train AI on that data?

That’s exactly what I’ve been saying all along too. I’m not sure what you think is being argued about here, or what you think I’m not understanding.

If they’re already doing it then no change is necessary. So why change it?

If making it legal makes it easier for them to do, then that was my original point. That’s why I think they’re making the change.

I explain why I think the thing the article is about is happening, I get pummelled with downvotes because people don’t like the thing I’m explaining. Someone calls me a retard, they get as many upvotes as I got downvotes. Seems like we’re already in a pretty bad spot.

Naive to think the GDPR is stopping anyone now.

So again, why change the rules? If the GDPR is already ineffective there’s no need to loosen it more.

Then why change the rules? The article’s author seems quite convinced that this will make AI training easier.

Did I say you should approve of it? I’m just explaining why it comes as no surprise to me.

Did you read the article? It says that making AI training easier is a key purpose of these changes.

Doesn’t seem terribly surprising to me, the existing rules make it very hard to make use of data for AI training in the EU. Other parts of the world have looser restrictions and they’re developing AI like gangbusters as a result. The EU needed to either loosen up too or accept this entire sector of information tech being foreign-controlled, which would have its own major privacy and security problems.