41–50 of 85 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it the exact same though?
Sorry, do you have actual point, or are just trying to be pedantic? Strictly speaking, it’s not exact same, because no two different things are exact same, by definition. However, my point is that the same principle should apply to both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By this logic Google Search couldn't exist. Except that Google won those cases.
How is Google search breaking copywrite?
You have to remember a company is not a social being with balanced obligations. Its obligation is to its owners and not to society. If OpenAI’s leadership weren’t saying precisely this, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs.
This isn't true at all. It has an obligation to follow the law of the society it operates in, even if that results in lower profits.
It seems that most people on this site believe that this is a good thing, but all this restriction would mean is that for the next while - the only companies able to afford mass licensing would be in the SPY 500, and that's assuming these companies wouldn't just flock to a nation outside of Americas influence. At some point, it becomes a national security issue. This technology is going to be leveraged in ways we can…
Why is it a national security issue? Because people who could make billions of dollars say so?
So basically, we know China is never going to pay the publishers/content creators ( never ). If we hold our principles to OpenAI ( pay who you took from ), they will go bankrupt. So of course they are speaking in end-game language. To suggest the race is lost even before it starts is an incredible thing. How is it that we can theorize that the model would get better with more data, but we can't theorize that the busi…
You know, there's a creative third way which the US could approach if it had the cajones. Allow OpenAI and other AI companies to use all data for training, but require that they pay it forward by charging royalties on profits beyond X amount of profit, where X is a number high enough to imply true AGI was reached. The royalties could go into a fund that would be paid out like social security payments for every Americ…
Another would be that they couldn't sell access to customers directly but rather must license it out to various entities at rates set by regulators. Those entities then would compete with each other for end customers. This of course might be prone to regulatory capture like happens with utilities.
What I don't understand is why this is always presented as a "race" that "we" have to win or else. It's just such a strange framing to me and every time I see it, it's presented as some sort of self-evident truth, but I don't think it's self-evident at all.
Nature is a complex system. Many are in competition, it's not just humans. Most of these systems form a balance (see biodiversity). Due to resource scarcity, power tends to form which gives these power structures and advantage. Humans form these power structures arounds groups. This has been happening for as long as humans tribalised. Right now, humans can form these groups at nation-state level complexity and to som…
The product requires crime? I feel like most products do not require crime. This is not a good sales pitch.
Either that, or copyright law is bad in its current form and LLM’s are yet an example of what exposes that. Even if copyright owners can’t point to how much damage, if any, they suffer from AI, it’s seen as wrong and bad. I think it’s getting boring to hear that story about copyright repeat itself. In most crimes, you need to be able point to a damage that was done to you. Also, while there are edge cases in some LLM…
It seems that most people on this site believe that this is a good thing, but all this restriction would mean is that for the next while - the only companies able to afford mass licensing would be in the SPY 500, and that's assuming these companies wouldn't just flock to a nation outside of Americas influence. At some point, it becomes a national security issue. This technology is going to be leveraged in ways we can…
It seems that most people on this site believe that this is a good thing, but all this restriction would mean is that for the next while - the only companies able to afford mass licensing would be in the SPY 500, and that's assuming these companies wouldn't just flock to a nation outside of Americas influence. At some point, it becomes a national security issue. This technology is going to be leveraged in ways we can…
For general questions, you can use the free wiki that's ingested into the LLM or pay a fee for general content like current events.
You keep the LLM free in the third-world out of necessity. OpenAI, in the first world, cannot ask to be treated as if it were a third-world company because we are too rich to be that ridiculous.