18 ms·
They downloaded pdfs (shock and horror) to create and publish the first open weights LLM Your ethics shouldn't be dictated by US copyright law
by sureMan6 12d ago
They downloaded pdfs (shock and horror) to create and publish the first open weights LLM
Your ethics shouldn't be dictated by US copyright law
- deleted 12d ago[deleted]
- ceejayoz 12d ago> Your ethics shouldn't be dictated by US copyright law If your ethics deem Meta ethical, they probably need recalibrating.
- s1artibartfast 12d agoActor and action conflation is incredibly common these days. If someone is bad and worth condemnation, all their actions must also be bad.
- throwway120385 12d agoIt's more likely that their motivation was bad.
- s1artibartfast 12d agoLike they wanted Llama to kill babies, or what?
- ceejayoz 12d agohttps://twitter.com/dril/status/831805955402776576 https://twitter.com/dril/status/831805955402776576
- nitterclick 12d ago[dead]
- nkrisc 12d agoIf a bad actor’s actions appear good, skepticism is warranted.
- soulofmischief 12d agoThe actor is bad, the deed is good. Though, the open sourcing of llama 2 and beyond was pushed by Yann Lecun and others, some of whom have moved on from the company. Zuckerberg supports the AI initiatives but he's hardly leading them himself.
- mcmcmc 12d agoWhat argument do you have that releasing llama was actually good? They gave AI access to terrorists and criminals as much as they did to independent researchers. Arguably they are partially responsible for escalating blackhat cyber capabilities that are contributing to the rapid rise in attacks. Open source is neither inherently good or bad. The most you could really say is that it was accelerationist
- bitpush 12d ago> They gave AI access to terrorists and criminals as much as they did to independent researchers. That's an odd hill to die own. Lots of despicable people use iPhones. Does that Apple is somehow complicit?
- mcmcmc 12d agoNo, it means iPhones are neither good nor bad.
- soulofmischief 12d agoThis is such a ridiculous response that I actually don't think it deserves any further time investment from me.
- mcmcmc 12d ago
- bigfatkitten 12d agoAdolph Hitler is often credited (with varying accuracy) with the Autobahn, fixing Germany’s unemployment and launching Volkswagen to produce affordable motor vehicles. None of these make him a good person any more than Meta’s occasional positive acts make it a good company.
- s1artibartfast 12d agoIm glad we agree then, provided you assume neither building the autobahn or affordable vehicles are evil. My whole point was bad actor /= bad deed.
- pibaker 12d agoGood action can also be a way for bad actors to buy good will so they can extend their other bad actions. Plus some of these actions are done on the interest of furthering the interest of the bad actors. An example is Meta striking deals with telecom operators to offer unmetered access to Meta services making Facebook synonymous with the Internet in some countries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org Actions and actors live in a context. Stop being so autistic and start looking at the bigger picture. You are not immune to propaganda.
- s1artibartfast 12d agoNo need to be rude. Luckily, I also have room in my brain to hold two entire thoughts, and can acknowledge a deed and it's context are differnt too. I don't have to take a brain-dead shortcut of claiming every deed is bad. Not even every deed that is self-serving is bad O_O
- Henchman21 12d ago> If someone is bad and worth condemnation, all their actions must also be bad. > I don't have to take a brain-dead shortcut of claiming every deed is bad. What? Reconcile these seemingly opposing statements?
- s1artibartfast 12d agoThe second sentence of the first post was explication of the sentiment described and criticized by the preceding sentence. It is the sentiment I am calling out. The first post could or should have been more clearly written with an em-dash, but then people would start calling me a clanker. /s > Actor and action conflation is incredibly common these days — If someone is bad and worth condemnation, all their actions must also be bad. My position: Bad person can do good thing for bad motives. example: The evil wife beating doctor who saves a baby just because they get paid for it. My "autistic" brain can recognize that saving babies is still a good thing. I don't have to like the doctor, or their reasons. For whatever reason, a large portion of people see a comparable situation and instantly start arguing that saving babies is bad.
- doc_ick 12d agoAre you saying laws shouldn’t restrict any company that give out an open source next-token iterator? I think that’s more hopium ethics.
- overfeed 12d ago> Your ethics shouldn't be dictated by US copyright law Corporate lawlessness has no good outcomes for humans.
- efficax 12d agoi don't necessarily disagree but others have been jailed for this activity (or like aaron swarz, driven to suicide)