Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 845 posts

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#271

Post by tdeck »

the_optimist wrote: post #255
tdeck wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be basic, but I found the Wikipedia article to be a good place to start: > An important aspect of fascist economies was economic dirigism,[35] meaning an economy where the government often subsidizes favorable companies and exerts strong directive influence over investment, as opposed to having a merely regulatory role. In general, fascist economies were based on private property and private initiative, but…

It’s a poor definition. The same “subsidization and directive influence” applies to all of Krugman’s Nobel-wining domestic champion, emerging market development leaders, in virtually all ‘successful’ economies. It also applies in the context of badly run, failed and failing economies. Safe to say this factor is only somewhat correlated. Broad assertions are going to be factually wrong.

That's because it's not a definition, it's simply a summary of a description of one characteristic.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#272

Post by jazzyjackson »

dylan604 wrote: post #244
jazzyjackson wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you still need to buy the sheet music first, all the AI Labs used pirated materials to learn from. There's two angles to the lawsuits that are getting confused - the largest one from the book publishers (Sarah Silverman et al) attacked from the angle that the models could reproduce copyrighted information. This was pretty easily quelled / RHLF'd out (used to be that if ChatGPT started producing lyrics a superviso…

I was handed sheet music every year in band, and within a few weeks had it memorized. Books with music are also available in the library.

As a student in a school band that debated whether to choose Pirates of the Caribbean vs Phantom of the Opera for our half time show, I remember the cost of the rights to the music was a factor in our decision.

The school and library purchased the materials outright, again, OpenAI Meta et al never paid to read them, nor borrowed them from an institution that had any right to share.

I'm a bit of an anti intellectual property anarchist myself but it grinds my gears that, given that we do live under the law, it is applied unequally.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#273

Post by basisword »

“Please help us. We’re only a little business worth $157 billion!” - The company ripping off everyone that’s ever written or drawn anything. Company’s like AirBnB and Uber breaking the rules, gaining control of the market, and then pushing up prices was bad. “Open” AI is just a whole other level of hubris.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#275

Post by woah »

taurath wrote: post #41
dchichkov wrote: post #8

>> In the proposal, OpenAI also said the U.S. needs “a copyright strategy that promotes the freedom to learn” and on “preserving American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material.” Perhaps also symmetric "freedom to learn" from OpenAI models, with some provisions / naming convention? U.S. labs are limited in this way, while labs in China are not.

It still warps my brain, they’ve taken trillions of dollars of industry and made a product worth billions by stealing it. IP is practically the basis of the economy, and these models warp and obfuscate ownership of everything, like a giant reset button on who can hold knowledge. It wouldn’t be legal, or allowed if tech wasn't seen as the growth path of our economy. It’s a hell of a needle to thread and it’s unlikely…

"IP" is a very new concept in our culture and completely absent in other cultures. It was invented to prevent verbatim reprints of books, but even so, the publishing industry existed for hundreds of years before then. It's been expanded greatly in the past 50 years.

Acting like copyright is some natural law of the universe that LLMs are upending simply because they can learn from written texts is silly.

If you want to argue that it should be radically expanded to the point that not only a work, but even the ideas and knowledge contained in that work should be censored and restricted, fine. But at least have the honesty to admit that this is a radical new expansion for a body of law that has already been radically expanded relatively recently.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#276

Post by JonChesterfield »

NoOn3 wrote: post #230
blitzar wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I should have "freedom to learn" about any Tesla in the showroom, any F-35 I see laying around an airbase or the contents of anyone in the governments bank account.

According to this scheme, if you find a bug and can read the bank's data, then you can use it as you want.

Nope, have to feed it into an llm first, afterwards it's legitimate.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#278

Post by basisword »

visarga wrote: post #161
crorella wrote: post #47

If they want to avoid paying for the creative effort of authors and other artists then they should also not charge for the use of their models.

But who should pay? The model developers? Training models is a cost center. And what about open source AI, should we legislate it out of existence? How about the AI providers? they operate on thin margins, and make just cents a million tokens. If one provider is too expensive, users quickly switch. Maybe the users? Users derive the lion share of benefits from AI. But those benefits are hard to quantize. Maybe a blank…

>> The real enemy of any artist is the long tail of works, sometimes spanning decades, that they have to compete against.

Had to check this wasn’t sama.

You seriously believe the real enemy of artists is other artists? Not the guys making billions and trying to convince us “the computers are just reading it like a human”?

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#279

Post by pmdr »

basisword wrote: post #273

“Please help us. We’re only a little business worth $157 billion!” - The company ripping off everyone that’s ever written or drawn anything. Company’s like AirBnB and Uber breaking the rules, gaining control of the market, and then pushing up prices was bad. “Open” AI is just a whole other level of hubris.

They do need help, they've yet to turn a profit.

Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules

#280

Post by iteratethis »

I'm disgusted by the mindset that companies should be able to do whatever they want when it comes to technology as impactful and revolutionary as AI.

AI sucks up the collective blood, sweat and tears of human work without permission or compensation and then re-monetizes it. It's a model that is even more asymmetrical than Google Search, whom at least gives back some traffic to creators (if lucky).

AI is going to decide on human lives if it drives your car or makes medical diagnoses or decisions. This needs regulation.

AI has the ability for convincing deepfakes, attacking the essence of information and communication in itself. This needs regulation, accountability, at least a discussion.

As AI grows in its capability, it will have an enormous impact on the work force, both white collar and blue collar. It may lead to a lot of social unrest and a political breakdown. "Let's see what happens" is wildly irresponsible.

You cannot point to foreign competition as a basis for a no-rule approach. You should start with rules for impactful/dangerous technology and then hold parties to account, both domestic and foreign.

And if it is true that we're in a race to AGI, realize that this means the invention of infinite labor. Bigger than the industrial revolution and information age combined.

Don't you think we should think that scenario through a little, rather than winging it?

The inauguration had the tech CEOs lined up directly behind Trump, clearly signaling who runs the country. Its tech and its media. How can you possible have trust in a technology even more powerful ending up in ever richer and more autocratic hands?

But I suppose the reality is that Altman should donate $100 million to Trump and tell him that he's the greatest man ever. Poof, regulation is gone.

Post reply on HN