I mean, you can test it yourself if you speak more than one language. If you ask for a direct translation and stress not to add content or change the text, it will do a very good job. Translation is a use case where LLM really shine.
I feel like this sub became "technology bad". Nobody wants to think and would rather just dogpile.
All you have to do is ask for direct translation and it does it fine. This is plain incompetence.
That being said, I've noticed there are wild difference between articles depending on the language. Mostly, it will be added content in the home language (so the article in French about a French city will have much more info) but sometimes, especially when it comes to Hebrew and Israel, you will get different conflicting information.
They should have implemented checks for this a long time ago.
“On September 29, 2025, it sent him ... the chatbot pretended to check it against a live database.
I usually don't give much credence to these stories but this is actually nuts. If this was done without Google aiming to, imagine how easy it would be for them to knowingly build sleeper cells and activate them all at once.
Edit: removed the quote since an other user posted it at the same time and it's a bit of a wall of text to have twice.
If the final product isnt the raw output from my understanding. The current laws are there mostly to stop the whole thing from turning into copyright mills.
In the same way Disney owns the copyright of what their workers made.
It's all me 😭. The newest one got a belly laugh out of me though, not gonna lie. I crossed out the only one that isn't a day old account.
Here's what I think is going on, since calling him out is probably the best (copy pasted from an other comment):
He is always posting divisive content. He probably downvotes certain comments and tries to instigate arguments to make Lemmy feel hostile. It's to turn people off and get them to leave imo.
I fully believe AI will be able to replace 50% or more of desk jobs in the near future. It's definitely a complicated situation and you make good points.
First and foremost, I think it's imperative the barrier for entry for model training is as low as possible. Anything else basically gives a select few companies the ability to charge a huge subscription fee on all our goods and services.
The data needed is pretty heavy as well, it's not very pheasible to go off of donated or public domain data.
I also think any job loss is virtually guaranteed and trying to save them is misguided as well as not really benefiting most of those affected.
And yea, the big companies win either way but if it's easier to use this new tech, we might not lose as hard. Disney for instance doesn't have any competition but if a bunch of indie animation companies and groups start popping up, it levels the playing field a bit.
Essentially yes. There isn't a happy solution where FOSS gets the best images and remains competitive. The amount of data needed is outside what can be donated. Any open source work will be so low in quality as to be unusable.
It also won't be up to them. The platforms where the images are posted will be selling and brokering. No individual is getting a call unless they are a household name.
None of the artists are getting paid either way so yeah, I'm thinking of society in general first.
Thats basically my main point, Disney doesn't need the data, Getty either. AI isn't going away and the jobs will be lost no matter what.
Putting a price tag in the high millions for any kind of generative model only benefits the big players.
I feel for the artists. It was already a very competitive domain that didn't really pay well and it's now much worse but if they aren't a household name, they aren't getting a dime out of any new laws.
I'm not ready to give the economy to Microsoft, Google, Getty and Adobe so GRRM can get a fat payday.
If the data has to be paid for, openAI will gladly do it with a smile on their face. It guarantees them a monopoly and ownership of the economy.
Paying more but having no competition except google is a good deal for them.
Using publically available data to train isn't stealing.
Daily reminder that the ones pushing this narrative are literally corporation like OpenAI. If you can't use copyright materials freely to train on, it brings up the cost in such a way that only a handful of companies can afford the data.
They want to kill the open-source scene and are manipulating you to do so. Don't build their moat for them.
Whatever is used, I think nothing is going to be 100% and everything should be verified by a native speaker. It is Wikipedia afterall, not some blog.
Non-LLM services are worse in my opinion but it probably depends on the language (LLMs probably struggle with certain languages as well).