381–390 of 845 posts
“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.
>> 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.
Have we all been transported to bizzaro land?
Different rules for billion dollar corps I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No amount of exposure so far has had any effect on corruption. That AI will somehow improve this is just magical thinking.
No - I mean the accessibility to the information and blatant use of power whereby we always knew it existed, but now we can tabulate and analyze it.
I'm not saying LLMs are useless, but I do not understand your use case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
All snakes have scales, so there is a 100% correlation between being a snake and having scales. That does not imply that fish are snakes. Nor does the presence of scaled fish invalidate the observation that having scales is a defining attribute of snakes (it's just not a sufficient attribute to define snakes).
https://www.morphmarket.com/morphpedia/corn-snakes/scaleless...
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…
A "moat" is a fine business term for what it relates to, and most moats are innocuous: * The secret formula for Coke * ASML's technology * The "Gucci" brand * Apple's network effects These are genuine competitive advantages in the market. Regulatory moats and other similar things are an assault on the free market. Moats in general are not.
I'm hardly the only one to think this way, hence regulation such as data portability in the EU.
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.
I'm surprised to see only one comment here addressing the issue of Chinese AI companies just flatly ignoring US copyright and IP laws/norms. I wonder if there is a viable path where we can facilitate some sort of economic remuneration for people who write and create visual art while not giving up the game to Chinese companies. This seems to be a thorny dilemma.
As a digital artist myself, it is quite simple. You have to sell physical objects. The art has to be printed out and that is the art. Anyone can get an image of Salvator Mundi for free too. That is not the art, that is an image. The art is the physical object that is the painting Salvator Mundi. It is no different than traditional art really, just at a different scale. You can buy really nice Picasso knock offs on eb…
Like you, I don't think there's good news there, though. As an e.g. writer, you have to convert to selling ideas. The way you sell an idea is that you give it away, and if hearing it makes people like you they will give you arbitrary support. For a writer at least what that means is that only original, interesting work that stands out will be valuable, and it will not be valuable to the extent that it is good, but to the extent that it appeals to an audience. You might as well be a tap dancer.
And if you aren't original, you'll never stand out amongst the AI slop, which will get better and better (and nicer and more pleasant to read and more useful and all that good shit that technology does.) I don't know if that's a bad thing. We have gone from an excess of uninteresting expression in the world to an overwhelming amount of "me too" and worthless repetition filling every crevice. I've probably published 3K words on the internet today. The number before the internet would be zero; but even back then the bookstores were filled with crap.
The market for crap has been taken by AI. And as it gets better, as the crap sea level rises, it will eventually be over most content creators' heads.
The only future for an expression market is parasocial. You're going to have to make people like you, and take care of you because they think of you as family. It's no wonder that entertainment is merging into politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“The Venetian Patent Statute of 19 March 1474, established by the Republic of Venice, is usually considered to be the earliest codified patent system in the world.[11][12] It states that patents might be granted for "any new and ingenious device, not previously made", provided it was useful. By and large, these principles still remain the basic principles of current patent laws.“ What are you talking about.
Patents and copyright are very different beasts.
Funny how fast those AI prophets went from: - The government need to prepare because soon they will need to give money to all those people we made obsolete and unemployed. And there is nothing to stop us. to: - We need money from the government to do that thing we told you about.
These grifters started with one narrative, and have done a full 180.
The Internet --> Web 2.0 --> algorithmic feeds progression has destroyed our collective ability to focus and to retain any memories (and the media being goldfish-like doesn't help either).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
Elephant in the room. If copyright and patent both expired after 20 years or so then I might feel very differently about the system, and by extension about machine learning practices.
It's absurd to me that broad cultural artifacts which we share with our parent's (or even grandparent's) generation can be legally owned.