• GoodEye8@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        You do know the R in GDPR literally stands for Regulation? There’s already a regulation that chatGPT should follow but deliberately doesn’t. Your idea isn’t to regulate, it’s to get rid of regulation so that you could keep using your tool.

        • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          Sounded more like enforcing the regulations without destroying the company or product to me, which I would have assumed was the preferred avenue with most regulations

          • GoodEye8@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Agree to disagree. Regulations exist for a purpose and companies need to follow regulations. If a company/product can’t existing without breaking regulations it shouldn’t exist in the first place. When you take a stance that a company/product needs to exist and a regulation prevents it and you go changing the regulation you’re effectively getting rid of the regulation. Now, there may be exceptions, but this here is not one of those exceptions.

            • laurelraven@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              I mean, sure, if that’s what someone is saying, but I didn’t see anyone suggest that here.

              Companies violating regulations can be made to follow them without tearing down the company or product, and I’m absolutely not convinced LLMs have to violate the GDPR to exist.