501–510 of 845 posts
The demand here for federal preemption of state law has nothing to do with copyright. Copyright is entirely federal level today. It has to do with preventing the use of AI to enable various forms of oppression.[1] Plus the usual child porno stuff. What AI companies are really worried about is a right of appeal from decisions made by a computer. The EU has that. " Individuals should not be subject to a decision that i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you start a company based on a new-ish idea and you can't figure out how to turn a profit, that's on you.
To be fair, it could be a matter of national security if AGI does ever happen. You'd very much want your country to be the first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This moves the cost of LLM errors from the customer to the company offering the service. So does that mean AI companies are going to have insurance/litigators like doctors and models will be heavily lawyered to add more extensive guardrails. I'm assuming this means not just OpenAI but any service that uses LLM APIs or open models? For ex: If a finance business pays to use an AI bot that automates interacting with d…
Conversely, would you suggest that if an AI driver has a programming error and kills 20 people, that the person who reserved the car should be required to enter into a “User Agreement” that makes them take responsibility?
If it's a car they own, they (should) have the ability to override the AI system and avoid the accident (ignoring nuances) - therefore owning responsibility.
If it's a Taxi they would be in a position where they can't interfere with the operation of the system - therefore the taxi company owns the responsibility.
Rightly or wrongly, this model of intervention capability is what that I'd use to answer these types of questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
China also doesn't have to care about the will of its people, human rights, freedom of speech, and a bunch of other pesky things that get in the way of doing whatever the fuck you want to people for personal gain.
Seems like it'd be bad to let them win then.
So, why not pay the price of each copyrighted work ingested by the model?
They do have to pay that. But if it's not fair use, they'd need to negotiate a custom license on top of that, for every single thing they use.
If it's fair use for OpenAI to steal content wholesale without fair compensation (as decided by the creator, unless they have granted the management of that license to a third-party) just to train AI models, then that opens a Pandora's Box where anyone can steal content to train their own models, creating an environment where copyright is basically meaningless. On the other hand, making it not fair use opens a different Pandora's Box, where these models have to be trained in fundamentally different ways to create the same outcome - and where countries like China, who notoriously ignore copyright laws, can leap ahead of the industry.
Almost like the problem is less AI, and more overly broad copyright laws. Maybe the compromise is slashing that window back down to something reasonable, like twenty to fifty years or so, like how we deal with patents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
The pod was good apart from starting/spreading the rumor that high numbers of “bill to Singapore” was evidence that China was circumventing GPU import bans.
Look it at literally who will have GPU dominance in future. (obv who will hit Qbit at scale... but we are at this scale now - and control currently is controlled by policy, then bits, then Qbits.)
Remember, we are witnessing the "Wouldnt it be cool if..?" CyberPunk manifestations of our Cyberpunk Readings of youth?
((I buildt a bunch of shit that spied on you because I read NeuroMancer, and thought wouldnt it be cool if..."
And then I helped build Ono Sendai throughout my career...
Is it so unrealistic? Many companies and people leave beautiful Cali due to over-regulation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So make the AI models public goods, developed by the government. Why should companies be getting rich on everyone else's work?
What could possibly go wrong giving the same government that is currently deleting information from websites including references to the “Enola Gay” control over models?
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.
OMG Thank you - hilarious. TimeCube is a legend... --- I am saying that AI can be used very beneficially to do a calculated dissection of the Truth of our Political structure as a Nation and how it truly impacts an Individual/Unit (person, family) -- and do so where we can get discernible metrics and utilize AIs understanding of the vast matrices of such inputs to provide meaningful outputs. Simple. EDIT @MegaButts;…
> a calculated dissection of the Truth of our Political structure as a Nation Not LLMs: They might reveal how people are popularly writing about the political structure of the nation. If that were the same as "truth", we wouldn't need any kind of software analysis in the first place.
Truth: The real meaning behind the words which may or may not be interpreted by the receiver in A/B/N meaning
Truth: The actual structure of the nature of whats being presented.
When you can manipulate an individual's PERCEIVED reception of TRUTH between such, you can control reality... now do that at scale..