Old Facebook trick - likely resetting that box each time the app is updated.

In all fairness this is someone saying something. Misremembering happens. Unless we have something with a bit more evidence, the simpler explanation suffices.

I wasn't aware of that, definitely a shady practice if that's the case.

>"reset this more than once ... to my surprise I found it re-enabled"

At least when my computer's bluetooth exhibits this behavior (e.g: if you don't have a keyboard&mouse plugged in at boot, bluetooth might auto-enable), I can go inside the hardware and physically disconnect the antenna.

What am I supposed to do in software (perhaps hardcode config.file)? in cloud software services (??)?

Has anyone else seen this happen? I checked and my setting is still off.

Whoa that's a slippery slope! Next you'll want model runners to cite the data their models were trained on

I suspect the fundamental problem here is it's hard (if not impossible) to determine if someone who tried the winning approach deserves the credit for the discovery, because there's always the chance that they could've done something differently, or stopped before finishing, and thus never actually made the discovery. They might've even tried the approach just based on a whim, without really thinking it would work, and might've given up without a final insight. And fundings run out, people end up in hospitals, etc. What do you credit them with when the work isn't finished? For trying an approach that sounded promising? You can do that I guess, but is that what they want?

But who gets credit then? Every mathematician who's work was read by an LLM during training? By that logic, we should put every published mathematician's name on the authorship of this paper. Sure, this guy should be higher up the list, but everyone's name should be on it by standard academic convention.

But this gets back to the original "who owns the LLM output" and "can you train models on the internet" argument that's been raging for years.

Under EU rules it doesn't constitute consent.

>>"Improve the model for everyone"

e.g: allows us to sell your personal data to make money so we can continue offering this service to all customers

I'm done with weasle-words and hours-long EULAs – we're at the point where USA needs to catch up to EU's consumer protections, perhaps with laws similar to already-existing USA "truth in lending" requirements (e.g: interest rates must be prominently displayed in a larger font, including annual fees, on all credit offers).

----

My judge-brother always asked during our childhood "why don't you think the judicial system is fair?!?" Thirty years ago, the best I could offer was "because it's a two-tiered system that mostly (only) rich people can afford to participate within."

Now my answer is: "the best example I can give is that our judicial system allows binding arbitration [and qualified immunity for police]. The system is set up so corporate personhood is more important than humanity, and it shows."