6 ms·

>worker-owned means of production On a similar note I keep thinking that having your "content" used as training material for a model ought to entitle you to a

>worker-owned means of production On a similar note I keep thinking that having your "content" used as training material for a model ought to entitle you to a proportional stake.

AnthonyMouse 1mo ago
Do the math on that one. There are 8 billion people. OpenAI revenue -- not profit -- is ~$25B, which is ~$3/year. That's if they have zero expenses for engineers or land or equipment or electricity, which isn't the case now and never will be. Their current profit is a number of substantial magnitude with a minus sign in front of it. The funny thing about all of this is that it's basically taking revenue from the major media companies to the benefit of OpenAI's customers more than OpenAI itself, which is exactly the redistribution of wealth people seem to be demanding, but that's not how it gets characterized because the media companies are the ones characterizing it. And there is some case to be made that disincentivizing human content creation is bad, but what that case really looks like is the argument against having the AI users free ride on an investment made by Sony or Comcast. Then what their proposals end up looking like is a tax paid by everyone where the money goes to those huge corporations. And of all the things we shouldn't do about this, that's the thing we shouldn't do the most.
- snickerbockers 1mo ago
  Its obviously impractical for a number of reasons, I just find it frustrating because based on the last century of IP law that should be what's happening. The big corporations won the fight on file-sharing so they ought to at least be accountable to their own legal arguments.
  - AnthonyMouse 1mo ago
    > Its obviously impractical for a number of reasons, I just find it frustrating because based on the last century of IP law that should be what's happening. Eh. Most LLM output is significantly transformative. The challenge here is that some of the output is similar enough to a work in the training data that it could reasonably be considered derivative. And evaluating whether it is when you have both of them in front of you isn't even the hard part. The real problem, from the perspective of LLM users, is that you don't know when it's happening because you haven't seen the original work to notice how similar it is to a particular output, and now maybe you have problems if you start making copies of it. > The big corporations won the fight on file-sharing so they ought to at least be accountable to their own legal arguments. Those big corporations are the likes of Sony and Comcast. They're the ones who would prefer to be able to sue OpenAI. But that's also the thing which is trash, because if the money went only to them then it's just propping up the incumbents while spitting on small independent content creators who get nothing. Whereas if you actually included everybody then we're back to ~$3/year and it's not even worth the administrative costs compared to just having them pay ordinary taxes on their profits to the extent that they eventually have any.
    - snickerbockers 1mo ago
      Microsoft is one of them too and they've been one of the primary funders of OpenAI. And that's to say nothing of the many recent mergers between software corporations and film studios.

>worker-owned means of production On a similar note I keep thinking that having your "content" used as training material for a model ought to entitle you to a proportional stake.

AnthonyMouse 1mo ago

Do the math on that one. There are 8 billion people. OpenAI revenue -- not profit -- is ~$25B, which is ~$3/year. That's if they have zero expenses for engineers or land or equipment or electricity, which isn't the case now and never will be. Their current profit is a number of substantial magnitude with a minus sign in front of it. The funny thing about all of this is that it's basically taking revenue from the major media companies to the benefit of OpenAI's customers more than OpenAI itself, which is exactly the redistribution of wealth people seem to be demanding, but that's not how it gets characterized because the media companies are the ones characterizing it. And there is some case to be made that disincentivizing human content creation is bad, but what that case really looks like is the argument against having the AI users free ride on an investment made by Sony or Comcast. Then what their proposals end up looking like is a tax paid by everyone where the money goes to those huge corporations. And of all the things we shouldn't do about this, that's the thing we shouldn't do the most.

snickerbockers 1mo ago
Its obviously impractical for a number of reasons, I just find it frustrating because based on the last century of IP law that should be what's happening. The big corporations won the fight on file-sharing so they ought to at least be accountable to their own legal arguments.
- AnthonyMouse 1mo ago
  > Its obviously impractical for a number of reasons, I just find it frustrating because based on the last century of IP law that should be what's happening. Eh. Most LLM output is significantly transformative. The challenge here is that some of the output is similar enough to a work in the training data that it could reasonably be considered derivative. And evaluating whether it is when you have both of them in front of you isn't even the hard part. The real problem, from the perspective of LLM users, is that you don't know when it's happening because you haven't seen the original work to notice how similar it is to a particular output, and now maybe you have problems if you start making copies of it. > The big corporations won the fight on file-sharing so they ought to at least be accountable to their own legal arguments. Those big corporations are the likes of Sony and Comcast. They're the ones who would prefer to be able to sue OpenAI. But that's also the thing which is trash, because if the money went only to them then it's just propping up the incumbents while spitting on small independent content creators who get nothing. Whereas if you actually included everybody then we're back to ~$3/year and it's not even worth the administrative costs compared to just having them pay ordinary taxes on their profits to the extent that they eventually have any.
  - snickerbockers 1mo ago
    Microsoft is one of them too and they've been one of the primary funders of OpenAI. And that's to say nothing of the many recent mergers between software corporations and film studios.