101–110 of 130 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's allowing them to sue OpenAI for copyright infringement: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/05/authors-file-a...
Allowing them to block human intellectual progress may not be the long-term win you assume it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are Modern Copyright laws helping authors, artists, and actors in those cases?
It's allowing them to sue OpenAI for copyright infringement: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/05/authors-file-a...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's shocking to me how many people in tech feel completely entitled to intellectual property that took someone years to master a skill to make. But talk about releasing a proprietary codebase and suddenly they want the lawyers involved because that actually threatens their livelihood.
This is exactly right. Almost everything you see on the internet is copyrighted, even if you're allowed to view it for free. Even FOSS and CC-licensed content is copyrighted. It's just as copyrighted a proprietary codebase. But for some reason, you don't see coding LLMs trained on proprietary code, eg. you don't see Microsoft training Copilot on private GitHub repos. It all smells very hypocritical, like these compan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People should be paid for their labor.
Then they shouldn't give away their work for free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then they shouldn't give away their work for free.
They're not. They have a copyright. Practicing artists usually benefit professionally from maintaining a public portfolio. Data being public is also notably not a license to use it for whatever purpose you want. Have some respect.
> Data being public is also notably not a license to use it for whatever purpose you want.
Under the Fair Use doctrine, it very well could be. It was when Google indexed every book they could buy, to the disdain of the Author's Guild and the titleholders they represented.
> Have some respect.
I will not respect an authority that forces me to rent digital content.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that actually a commonly held position? I've seen IP abolishonosts here, and I've seen people argue the merits of proprietary software, but I don't get the impression that those are generally the same people.
They’re straw-manning, programmers are the best sharers in the world. Open source software has lead the drive for open source learning and information in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true though. Every word of this sentence, for instance, has a correct spelling and grammatical rules as to where the words and punctuation go. To English learners, that might be very difficult. I'm learning a new language now and I feel the pain. The textbook and instructor, in this case, is way more correct than the collective opinion of my fellow students. The vast majority of things actually follow this…
> Every word of this sentence, for instance, has a correct spelling and grammatical rules as to where the words and punctuation go. As a linguistic descriptivist, hahahahahahahaha.
Linguistic descriptivism just means that, rather than hold up an ideal of a language and prescribe variants as wrong or right, linguists should simply describe the language based on its use. That doesn't mean that the language (or variants of it) has no grammatical rules. It just means that, rather than holding up some prestige variety as "the language," and unprestigious ones as "uneducated errors" that shouldn't be studied, that you study all of them and determine how they work and how they're developing.
No matter where you go, people speak languages with a limited set of phones, which are mapped onto morphemes, which combine by particular rules to form words, which themselves form larger groups, like phrases and sentences (often the line between these things isn't clear cut). But languages all have rules of their own.
To imply that descriptivism means languages have no rules would be like saying that physics has no laws, because a physicist makes empirical observations instead of just deciding whatever the laws of physics ought to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since their academic background is so relevant (language studies and cultures being the exact domain of the impact of LLMs on society), I don't see why a grain of salt is needed.
> Since their academic background is so relevant If their academic background were relevant, they would have provided specific negative outcomes that may result from the usage of Llama 2, rather than a vague "the history of this company's choices does not inspire confidence". What, of the many open source software releases by that company in the ML/AI field "does not inspire confidence"?
Didn't Facebook get it's start by Zucc populating it with his classmates without their knowledge or consent?
> Zuckerberg found himself brought before the Administrative Board for breaching security, violating copyrights and violating individuals’ privacy by using students’ online facebook photos without permission.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/6/10/mark-e-zuckerbe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Copyrighted material, sexual content, political opinions, throw it all in and release it please! Why copyrighted material? Could we stop celebrating how tech is going to steal everyone's copyrighted works in a massive effort to replace the artists who made it? Why does everyone here hate artists so much? Do they not deserve any rights over their IP, eg, the right to say no when someone wants to make derivative work…
I believe LLMs should be allowed to read/view/consume content and learn from it even if that content has a copyright. We phrase it like somehow the material is being copied into the LLM, but that’s not what it’s doing. It’s building a neural graph from the experience of consuming that content. What would the world be like if humans couldn’t learn, train the weights of the interconnects of their neural tissue, from an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not. They have a copyright. Practicing artists usually benefit professionally from maintaining a public portfolio. Data being public is also notably not a license to use it for whatever purpose you want. Have some respect.
I have a copyleft, for all the good it does my work. Copyright protects artists from nothing, and leaving it uncontested harms the consumer more than the artists. > Data being public is also notably not a license to use it for whatever purpose you want. Under the Fair Use doctrine, it very well could be. It was when Google indexed every book they could buy, to the disdain of the Author's Guild and the titleholders th…
They are very obviously asking you to respect the individual artists.