441–450 of 845 posts
All these whiney creatives who feel threatened just need to suck it up and deal with it. Even if they got their way in the US, another app in another country will just use their data without permission. All they are doing is ensuring those apps wouldnt be American.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moat is an Orwellian word and we should reject words that contain a conceptual metaphor that is convenient for abusing power. "Building a moat" frames anti-competitive behavior as a defense rather than an assault on the free market by implying that monopolistic behavior is a survival strategy rather than an attempt to dominate the market and coerce customers. "We need to build a moat" is much more agreeable to tell e…
> "Building a moat" frames anti-competitive behavior as a defense This is a drastic take, I think to most of us in the industry "moat" simply means whatever difficult-to-replicate competitive advantage that a firm has invested heavily in. Regulatory capture and graft aren't moats, they're plain old corrupt business practices.
Worse that "moats" are a good thing, which they are for the company, but not necessarily society at large. The larger the moat, the more money coming out of your pocket as a customer.
It is insidious.
JD vance seems to be quite aware of OpenAIs meta strategy so I wouldn't be surprised if this is declined (ie semi specifically aimed at something they want to force them to comply with).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe with regulatory capture the companies that pushed for the regulation in the first place at least comply with it (and hopefully the regulation is not worthless). This behaviour by ClosedAI is even worse: push for the regulation, then push for the exemption.
Regulatory capture is usually the company pushing for regulations that align with the business practices they already implement and would be hard for a competitor to implement. For example, a car company that wants to require all other manufactures to build and operate wind tunnels for aerodynamics testing. Or more realistically, regulations requiring 3rd party sellers for vehicles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Heavy hitter lawyer, PR expert. Some google terms: Masters of disaster, Spin cycle.
Sounds like a pleasant person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can you compress the internet including copyrighted material and then sell access to it? Define access? If you mean sending out the compressed copy, generally no. For things people normally call compression. If you want to run a search engine, then you should be fine. > At what percentage of lossy compression it becomes infringement? It would have to be very very lossy. But some AI stuff is. For example there are i…
Commercial audio generation models were caught reproducing parts of copyrighted music in a distorted and low-quality form. This is not "learning", just "imitating". Also, as I understand they didn't even buy the CDs with music for training; they got it somewhere else. Why do organizations that prosecute people for downloading a movie do not want to look if it is ok to make a business on illegal copies of copyrighted…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not about memory or training. The LLM training process is not being run on books streamed directly off the internet or from real-time footage of a book. What these companies are doing is: 1. Obtain a free copy of a work in some way. 2. Store this copy in a format that's amenable to training. 3. Train their models on the stored copy, months or years after step 1 happened. The illegal part happens in steps 1 an…
But making copies for yourself, without distributing them, is different than making copies for others. Google is downloading copyrighted content from everywhere online, but they don't redistribute their scraped content. Even web browsing implies making copies of copyrighted pages, we can't tell the copyright status of a page without loading it, at which point a copy has been made in memory.
If this was legal, nobody would be paying for software.
I heard the theory that Elon Musk has a significant control over the current US government. They're not best pals with Sam Altman. This seems like it might be a good way to see how much power Elon actually has over the government?
I think we are beyond the "theory" phase by now. Just yesterday I saw the president of a country advertising the products of a private company (Trump making an obvious marketing ploy for Tesla). How can this ever be acceptable?
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-president-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It already applies to real people, doesn't it? I.e. if you read a book, you're not allowed to start printing and selling copies of that book without permission of the copyright owner, but if you learn something from that book you can use that knowledge, just like a model could.
These AI models are just obviously new things. They aren’t people, so any analogy about learning from the training material and selling your new skills is off base. On the other hand, they aren’t just a copy of the training content, and whether the process that creates the weights is sufficiently transformative as to create a new work is… what’s up for debate, right? Anyway I wish people would stop making these analo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just like a model could It is not remotely the same, the companies training the models are stealing the content from the internet and then profiting from it when they charge for the use of those models.
> the companies training the models are stealing the content from the internet Are you stealing a billboard when you see and remember it? The notion that consuming the web is "stealing" needs to stop.