Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you not enjoy being paid for your work?
I'm a business owner. I love generative AI.
You can both love gen AI, and support an artist's right to decide who, when, where and how their work can be used.
OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules
771–780 of 845 posts
Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules
#772A slippery slope to eliminate copyright out right. The argument made is that AI is somehow more special and will otherwise lose to competition with China. The flaw there is that AI is not more special than any other endeavor while all other American markets must equally compete with China. What that failure means is that when anything is exceptional then everything becomes exceptional because the economic conditions…
[deleted]
Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules
#773Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ask for regulation then ask for exempt That's exactly what has been happening: Ask HN: Why is OpenAI pushing for regulation so much - 2023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36045397
They've no moat so I don't see them surviving without a gov't bail out like this.
OpenAI has a gigantic moat.
No moat means Joe Anybody can compete with them. You just need billions in capital, a zillion GPUs, thousands of hyper skilled employees. You need to somehow get the attention of tens of millions of consumers (and then pull them away from the competition, ha).
Sure.
The same premise was endlessly floated about eg Uber and Google having no moats (Google was going to be killed by open search, Baidu, magic, whatever). These things are said by people that don't understand the comically vast cost of big infrastructure, branding, consumer lock-in (or consumer behavior in general), market momentum, the difficulty of raising enormous sums of capital, and so on.
Oh wait the skeptics say: what about DeepSeek. To scale and support that you're going to need what I described. What's the plan for supporting 100 million subscribers globally with a beast of an LLM that wants all the resources you can muster? Yeah, that's what I thought. Oh but wait, everyone is going to run a datacenter out of their home and operate their own local LLM, uhh nope. It's overwhelmingly staying in the cloud and it's going to cost far over a trillion dollars to power it globally over the next 20 years.
OpenAI has the same kind of moat that Google has, although their brand/reach/size obviously isn't on par at this point.
Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules
#774Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think one of the things about growing up is accepting personal responsibility and not looking at the government/daddy to protect you from everything. If I sell 400 million skateboards - do we need a regulatory board to approve skateboard design changes? I'm sure millions of people make unregulated sandwiches at home just fine.
What I hate about this argument is that the FDA does not predate civilization. In fact, it's a relatively recent development. Not only has this idea been tried, but throughout most of human history, people lived in the world you describe, died of salmonella, and the people who lived in that world decided they'd be better if that wasn't a thing anymore.
In the world predating didn't have single factories serving hundreds of millions of people - such a concentration of risk very much merits a FDA.
It is all about risk.
FDA enables civilization to grow above a certain threshold.
Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules
#775Putting legal issues aside for a moment, I argue copyrighted material should be considered fair use simply by virtue of the enormous societal benefits LLMs/AI bring in making the vast expanse of human knowledge accessible. It’s a major step forward for humanity.
Sure. And all outputs should be public domain and the service should be free.
Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules
#776Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Internet people say you can, but there's no actual legal argument or case law to support that. Quite the opposite. The burden of proof is on you to show a single person ever, in history, who has been prosecuted for that. If nobody in the world has ever been prosecuted for this, then that means it is either legal, or it is something else that is so effectively equivalent to "legal" that there is little point in usin…
> If you want to take the position that, "uhhhhhhh, there is exactly 0% chance of anyone ever getting in trouble or being prosecuted for this, but I still don't think its legal, technically!" > Then I guess go ahead. That is exactly what I am saying.
Gotcha, so then you agree that there is exactly zero cases or evidence of anyone ever being punished for this, which is the most important part.
If you do this, you are not going to be held legally liable for anything.
Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules
#777For those who have used the image generation models and even the text models to create things, there is no way you can look at the Disney-look-alike images and NOT see that as copyright infringement...
IANAL but for copyright infringement you have to distribute it, and AI image generation is like asking someone to paint a cartoon mouse in a wall of your living room
AI generation is also like asking a professional to design a logo for your corporation. It all matters what the license you are getting to the outputs. If the Image Generator is saying that outputs from their service can be used for commercial purposes, it isnt like your example at all.
Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules
#778The easiest logical way I can make sense of this problem is to apply it to humans. Copyrighted material has tremendously impacted my thinking and work, but I had to pay to access it. And as long as I'm not publishing copies of the copyrighted work, derivative work seems to be fair use. This seems fair for everyone, if they want to train on a resource then they should pay for it.
The only angle I can see this working for OpenAI is pushing the anti-China national security threat narrative, which I expect to see a lot more of this year (especially with this administration). While I personally hate that, I can definitely see how AI + drones are the obvious future in warfare, so I don't think it's that far-fetched to work.
Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules
#779Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've no moat so I don't see them surviving without a gov't bail out like this.
OpenAI has a gigantic moat. No moat means Joe Anybody can compete with them. You just need billions in capital, a zillion GPUs, thousands of hyper skilled employees. You need to somehow get the attention of tens of millions of consumers (and then pull them away from the competition, ha). Sure. The same premise was endlessly floated about eg Uber and Google having no moats (Google was going to be killed by open search…
[dead]
Re: OpenAI asks White House for relief from state AI rules
#780Earlier quoted context omitted.
100%. Western tech needs the competition. They are very prone to navel-gazing simply because SV ended up being the location for tech once. Funny how they like to crow about free markets, while also running to daddy government when their position is threatened.
Competition can only work when there is variation between the entities competing. In the US right now you can have a death match between every AI lab, then give all the resources to the one which wins and you'd still have largely the same results as if you didn't. The reason why Deepseek - it started life as a HFT firm - hit as hard as it did is because it was a cross disciplinary team that had very non-standard skil…
What are you doing with FPGAs? I’m an FPGA engineer and don’t work at an HFT firm. Those types of jobs seem to be in the minority compared to all the aerospace/defense jobs and other sectors.