I suspect that Microsoft, not unreasonably, thinks that the value of their AI slop will be enhanced if they can use an existing property to get people to classify particularly grating AI slop so that they can tune their copilot-related stuff to produce less grating or less obvious slop in the future.

Maybe someone in the org actually cares about linkedin's reputation as a hellscape for aura-farming lunatics; but I'd be shocked if the incentive that MS is actually motivated by is anything but the chance to get a dataset of text ranked by how unpleasantly bot-like it is to try to make their bots less visible.

Looks like Microsoft is trying to convince people to classify more and less distasteful bot slop for them so they can tune copilot outputs in the future.

The winning move is not to play.

The unwashed masses had knowledge for a while now. Even before the Internet, there were public libraries. Did they use them? Mostly not.

The problem here is that this puts making dangerous stuff in the hands of morons that would have never been able to do it before. And morons also do not understand consequences and there are many very aggressive morons.

We are not. That is all not very difficult and LLMs can deduce how to do it from other stuff. Sure, they will get things wrong and hallucinate sometimes, but making cocaine was discovered about 125 years ago, the first nerve gas was 90 years ago and bomb making was discovered by the Chinese in the 11th century. This is all not hard to do, given a general applied science background. The only real problem is that you may end up killing yourself if you are not an expert.

The problem is that there are people dumb enough to not manage with a general web-search, but just about smart enough to manage with LLM instructions where they can ask questions and the the LLM to diagniose problems.

If you are talking engineers or scientists in any physical science, they all can do massive damage. They just routinely understand that this is counterproductive and hence it basically never happens.

It will not be reliable at it, but it can still succeed in giving good instructions sometimes. At least for simple processes.

That is not enough. The data on how to do such things is widely distributed in other things. LLMs are somewhat good at combining that and hence your idea does not work.

One problem would be that in some (many?) cases that answer is not enough to determine whether something needs to be censored. I expect there are more problems.

Just more evidence how problematic this technology actually is.

I do not see you ignoring me. I see you ranting impotently against what I say. Well, hat can you expect from an LLM cultist? Certainly not insight. But trying to suppress all voices that speak sanity? That is veeeery much in character for a cultist.

You know, ranting this way on the GPL does make you NOT look smart.

Yes to both.

Learning involves insight and no serious legal assessment will ever accuse LLMs to have insight. As to derivative work, the only way to "clean" input is a clean-room process and that critically involves some person doing a creative process to turn a spec into a product. If that happens to create something similar, it is fine. But the key is the creative act that made the original is NOT copied and an new (not necessarily different, but necessarily independent) creative act is used instead. And as LLMs doe not do "creative" either....

Obviously, the LLM cultists will see that very different, but the courts will very likely not.

True

They probably just did not have any major Azure security compromises or outages in the last few months. Obviously, that will not keep.

Personal recent experience? The one time I tried to use o365 email in the last 3 weeks, I had to wait for an hour until it was up again. Utterly pathetic.

They have a lot of momentum by mindless followers that cannot imagine ever using something different.