11 ms·
What an interesting take. One question, do you think stealing from a thief is morally okay? I'm just asking no judgement on my side.
by michelsedgh 1mo ago
What an interesting take. One question, do you think stealing from a thief is morally okay? I'm just asking no judgement on my side.
- AussieWog93 1mo agoI'd say it's more "Downloading LimeWire Pro from LimeWire" than actual theft.
- dullcrisp 1mo agoWhy isn’t it more like building a hardware store using lumber you purchased from a competing hardware store? Or founding a school using an education you obtained at a different school?
- ygjb 1mo agoBecause that doesn't satisfy the narrative of American exceptionalism. It's easier to point at something and say it was stolen or copied than it is to compete, especially with the political climate in the US. This isn't an anti-American sentiment. It is an anti-corporate/regulatory capture/embrace and extinguish sentiment (which probably reads the same to many people these days).
- Eldt 1mo agoBecause the companies did it underhandedly without prior consent? Imagine you walked into a hardware store to grab some lumber, didn't pay for it, and the store had to call the cops to swing around your house? That's hardly the typical shopping experience, now is it?
- dullcrisp 1mo agoI think that’s my point: none of those things happened, so on what basis can we claim that it’s like they did. Who has to agree with what you’re doing in order for it not to be considered underhanded?
- Gigachad 1mo agoIf the legal system declares the first thief’s theft not theft then all bets are off.
- BeetleB 1mo ago> If the legal system declares the first thief’s theft not theft But they didn't find it. The Big LLM provider accepted guilt and paid a fine. You can argue whether it was a fair amount they paid, but there is no legal precedent that was set. It's still considered theft.
- kennywinker 1mo agoAs i understand it, they accepted guilt for downloading stuff illegally. They didn’t accept guilt for incorporating all of human output into their model without consent.
- TheOtherHobbes 1mo agoCopyright law only considers illegal ownership of a work, so the crime - or tort - was making/acquiring copies without permission or payment. Training from copies has been ruled fair use because it's "transformative" and not simply "derivative." This is obviously debatable, but that's where the debate is at the moment.
- michelsedgh 1mo agoSo basically because they just browsed and used the information that was mostly public on the internet and they didnt copy it, they just learned from it and thats fine. Which makes sense. None of the llms let u copy someones work exactly anyways... makes total sense honestly. So in this case what happens to distilling? Is that also learning or ur trying to get to their actual weights by kind of reverse engineering it? Where would the argument fall there?
- kennywinker 1mo ago> but that's where the debate is at the moment. Because of the rulings of a couple of judges. Is that actually what the majority of people think? > Copyright law only considers illegal ownership of a work That's definitely not true. File sharing, for example, is illegal even if you legally own the original copy you're sharing. Similarly, copyright has something to say if I read a legal copy of harry potter and then create a new work in that world.
- itemize123 1mo agoquestion's phrasing made your judgement obvious
- michelsedgh 1mo agoI seriously wasnt judging i maybe shouldve asked llm to frame it better cause i knew it might sound that way, thats why i added: im not judging, merely asking...