7 ms·
muse-spark-1.3-contributor. Say what you want and Meta, changing the pricing to explicitly say 'we train on this and value it this much' is what every model pro
by jmward01 14d ago
muse-spark-1.3-contributor. Say what you want and Meta, changing the pricing to explicitly say 'we train on this and value it this much' is what every model provider should do. As a side note, it is now completely obvious how much stealing my tokens for training is worth to model providers. I avoid/pay extra/try my best to make sure I am not getting trained on but it seems like it keeps popping up that I missed a setting somewhere. This is the first quantifiable number I have seen out there from a model provider. Maybe it can help in lawsuits to quantify the damages for copyright/other things?
- popularonion 14d agoThis has been my hunch for a while about all the discourse of "OpenAI/Anthropic subscription pricing is unsustainable!!" We understand theoretically they're taking our data, but yeah, that data is vital to the entire business plan of all these companies and WAY more valuable than people are giving credit for. I checked up on Mistral recently and saw their Claude-alike coding harness is using GLM now, whatever it takes to keep users on their platform and feeding them data.
- bilalnpe 14d agoBoth of them let you opt out of it on subscriptions.
- cma 14d agoWe already had a good idea of how valuable it is from how much X.ai acquired Cursor for, and the near-immediate improvements to their coding scores.
- bluecalm 13d agoThis is also really smart business wise imo. For hobby projects, toys, quick scripts you don't really mind if they train on it. It's a win-win. Once you get used to the tools and you want to do more serious business you are more likely to buy a more expensive sub from them.