5 ms·
Until the industry addresses the Original Sin of Generative AI (and the ascendance of Thievery Corporations), we should expect more and more of this. So far, th
by jtfrench 2mo ago
Until the industry addresses the Original Sin of Generative AI (and the ascendance of Thievery Corporations), we should expect more and more of this. So far, theft has been rewarded. As long as you make enough money, people seem to be okay with ignoring long-lasting impacts of intellectual theft. As long as you become King of the Cannibals, it seems many are happy to remember you as King and not as the Cannibal.
- ag709 2mo agounrelated, but I love the writing style of this comment
- Tarq0n 2mo agoIgnoring patent law has done great things for 16th century continental Europe and more recently China. Rent-seekers and ladder kickers shouldn't always be respected, they'll slow down societal advancement to a crawl if you let them. The question is whether the gains these AI companies are making from their transgressions are overly privatized.
- b3kart 2mo agoI think significantly fewer people would have an issue with this if the profit was socialized. The fact that a company took all of humanity’s data and is profiting from _is_ the issue.
- sealeck 2mo agoAnd we can also ignore model law; we should require OpenAI/Anthropic to provide unrestricted access (at standard API rates) to their competitors so they can use this to train new models.
- semiquaver 2mo agoIP infringement is not theft. There’s a whole “you wouldn’t download a car” meme about this. Intellectual property has always been a made up idea that has been abused for years by big companies far in excess of its societal value. I’m not sad that the force of IP restrictions seems to be weakening, but I am surprised to see so many people in tech that previously were pretty lassez faire on IP to suddenly take it so seriously now that it’s become a useful means to criticize AI companies with.
- collinmcnulty 2mo agoWhich is why OpenAI and Anthropic think it’s fair play for other companies to distill their models, right?
- semiquaver 2mo agoThey are free to use the mechanisms available to them to act (within the law) in their own best interest, exactly as every independent entity is. You and I are free to criticize stances that look like hypocrisy (and I’ll certainly stipulate that the behavior you point out is hypocritical) and vote for reps that will respond appropriately.
- sealeck 2mo agoI think this comment is quite disingenous -- it's like if there's a rule that says "nobody can walk on the grass" that you object to because you'd like to have a picnic with some friends; your claim is that if someone gets out a bulldozer and drives it across the lawn to make a parking lot followed by an army of lawyers that anyone who wanted to picnic is objecting purely because it's a convenient way to criticise the bulldozers.
- wrsh07 2mo agoThese examples don't really add up to me. You can continue to enjoy the books and articles etc They are just also used to create a new thing In the picnic example, the picnickers can't use the lawn anymore. As an aside: as somebody who lives in a dense area, I also would stay off the lawn. There's a utilitarian element where you have to rotate which lawns are used, and avoid using them when wet etc so as to maximize their utility. The picnickers should find a lawn that's open.
- justinhj 2mo agoUnlike Uber and Airbnb that did break local laws and got away with it because people wanted their service (and also deep pockets for handling litigation and encouraging politicians to see your way), training an ai is generally not theft. If I read a physics textbook and now I know some physics do I perform a theft when I use it practice or teach someone else?