41–50 of 72 posts
We, in Europe, are jumping the gun way too soon and this will have serious consequences to the industry, here. At this moment we barely understand how or why LLMs do what will be their role in society. Why is it that some bureaucrats want to regulate and based on what given the status of the industry? The only thing I see is the industry moving elsewhere just as it is starting to develop which is a shame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like this ignores the monumental shift/work that has to happen to get seemingly simple things. Take Uber for example. In the end, the biggest impact it had was that now you can always get a car from your phone, from an app, and it's reliable. A lot of taxi companies now have apps for them too with maps integration etc, but they didn't see the need for that before Uber. So we literally had to have a company get…
I think Uber is a prime example of what to avoid. Sure when it started it seemed nice, it was an affordable, fairly reliable, much more convenient alternative to taxis. Now its expensive, its drivers a new impoverished class while the previously somewhat comfortable taxi-drivers have been decimated, the wait times keep getting longer, and the company is hemorrhaging money. If all we needed was an app for taxis theres…
I don't think it's at all clear that all of those negatives you cite are entirely accurate. Impoverished is certainly an overstatement and my personal experiences with taxis have been relatively low quality compared with relatively high-quality ride-sharing experiences.
There likely have been negative impacts as a result of ride-sharing, but it isn't clear that ride-sharing is net negative. The reason technologies are called "disruptive" is because they disrupt things, which typically has some negative impacts for some folks. That doesn't mean it isn't worth it. What is lacking, especially in the United States, is a good social safety net to catch folks who have experienced disruption. That doesn't mean the tech should be banned or regulated to death.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What does a post intellectual property world even look like, though? It looks like Github! People sharing and collaborating to build new things. No lawyers getting in the way. Attribution is automatically handled by git logs. It's glorious.
Many parts of Github would not exist without intellectual property laws. If you post code, it's not just a free for all, you still have licenses and own your contributions if not specified otherwise. Especially company stuff would be much, much less open. That's not to say that every facet of IP law is good, or even a judgement on it. Just pointing out that only parts of Github work like you describe.
I do not think this is true.
I think most devs on GitHub operate as if there are no IP laws.
I think if they went away, almost nothing would change (some noise around "license" fields would go away).
ChatGPT must be given a sense of ethics, is what i extend to from here. so we seem to be starting off with giving rightful attribution. how far should that go? should an AI recognize that all data generated by human input, should be recognized as such, and derivations of data, are of automated artificial origin. should an AI be allowed to learn what property rights are, and how to manage or physically effectuate them…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? Most data that exists falls under copyright. This regulation will be worse for hobbyists who can't pay to access copyrighted data will simply cause companies like OpenAI to pay copyright holders (read: large copyright-holding corporations). This looks bad for everyone except large preexisting companies that hold lots of copyright.
>Is it? Most data that exists falls under copyright. I am not sure if this is true(that most of the input in this AIs is copyrighted under a non permissive license), but I would prefer to have everyone address this problem and clarify it, Microsoft trains it's copilot on GPL code, but can open source community train on MS proprietary code ? Maybe there will be a fight against copyright and undo all the bullshit Disne…
We definitely need clarification, but however long the first court case takes there will be an appeal, and then probably several more. So I'm afraid we're going to be living in limbo for at least a decade, which is sort of an answer in of itself since by that time services like this will have become pervasive and will have been integrated into lots of workflows across the planet.
It seems to me that training on MS proprietary code is perfectly legal, but how you acquire that code is probably important. If you are able to decompile the code from your Windows machine and use it for training then that looks A-OK, but if you use Microsoft code that was leaked as part of a hack then maybe that's a different story since you're in possession of stolen property.
When they initiated GDPR, they claimed to create a level playing field between US based and EU based tech companies, besides of "saving" privacy. It didn't turn out that well, US tech was able to handle the added bureaucracy much better, still collects data in ways the law can't catch up with and already owned pretty much the whole market which put them into an even better position (as in "register/sign in to our platform to not see any banners again" or "let's just completely get rid of cookies and start a powerplay against the competition").
Now the EU is going to make it even harder for EU tech to collect data to base their training sets on. As a EU tech startup, you barely have any chance to collect enough data "officially" so you'd scrape the web which would pretty much be disallowed by such a regulation.
IMHO what would fit into the whole patronizing government approach and would help EU tech is to create an official EU data lake subsidized by tax money with legal security for companies, data of much higher quality than stuff scraped from the web and non-PII data from public authorities. At best, they would also provide heavily subsidized computing for EU companies to execute their training runs on. This could lead to a transparent and high-quality data economy between many different stakeholders and be a real advantage for the location. It would also be much more efficient than every private company creating its own data silo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is important to recognize the distinction between money and wealth, which is often overlooked in American culture. The consistent high rankings of European countries on the lists of "happiest places to live" can be attributed, in part, to their approach in curbing corporate influence.
« Happiest place to live » is only because we are still living on the wealth accumulated during our glorious centuries. We are still feeding on the remains of those beast, which thankfully for us includes things like buildings and infrastructures that cannot easily loose value, and landscapes that look good enough to attract tourists to feed us. Think about how much better EU was compared to the rest of the world in…