51–60 of 85 posts
It's always interesting to see how the title of a HN post radically changes the people who comment and vote. The AI friendly people are being carpet bombed by haters, but in a model release thread the haters would be flagged to oblivion.
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's not that hard. So if you want to ask questions or work with a Stephen King book, you have to rent it during your LLM session. OpenAi would make a small fee, the author would get the majority, and the user gets value. You don't have to be a billion-dollar company to set up a monetization structure like that. Startups could do this if they negotiate with authors. For general questions, you can use the free wiki th…
We cannot let that happen with AI technology, and it is a very difficult conversation when we're talking about technology that has already replaced likely hundreds of thousands of jobs in the form of extending the amount of productivity individuals can produce.
To you, this is a moral issue, and one I absolutely agree with at its core. But this is technology, in my opinion, has the risk of eventually triggering a form of social stratification. The focus should be on keeping the technology ubiquitous, accessible, and unrestricted.
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…
It's a race with winners and losers because ego and money. Ego because … well, ego.
Money because whoever develops the most powerful AI and gets enough people to buy into it, will probably retain the top spot for quite a while because inertia (sort of like how Google got to be where it is).
I'm sure some level of paranoia feeds into it at some level. Whoever gets locked in the public's mindset will rule the world and if it's not a Silicon Valley magnate, then they are losers.
Copyright infrigement is not stealing[0]. The person still has what they made. Not sure why they propigate it as theft. Seems like a pro copyright propaganda extremisit article which goes significantly against progress of advancements for arts and sciences. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(19...
> against progress of advancements for arts and sciences. No it’s always against commercialization. That’s why we have exceptions like political commentary, satire and in particular arts and sciences . The issue is about making money from someone else’s work. You can still disagree with it of course, but let’s have an honest discussion.
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.
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? Why do we have to? Why do companies get to take the creative output of humanity for free to make a profit? Why is it a national security issue? Because people who could make billions of dollars say so?
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…
You're assuming this leads...somewhere. Currently, AI is not all that useful. And progress seems to be slowing, not accelerating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that hard. So if you want to ask questions or work with a Stephen King book, you have to rent it during your LLM session. OpenAi would make a small fee, the author would get the majority, and the user gets value. You don't have to be a billion-dollar company to set up a monetization structure like that. Startups could do this if they negotiate with authors. For general questions, you can use the free wiki th…
When Roger Bacon discovered what Gunpowder was capable of, he kept it to himself - he thought that once the poor knew how to make gunpowder, the poor would make weapons to destroy them. We cannot let that happen with AI technology, and it is a very difficult conversation when we're talking about technology that has already replaced likely hundreds of thousands of jobs in the form of extending the amount of productivi…
But this is exactly what proposals like you’re responding to are trying to do. Ignoring the morality this is an economic issue. Massive economic value is potentially going to be created by stealing from individuals. Why can’t they get small kickbacks? Why must their contribution be completely devoid of remuneration for us to stand a chance of “winning a war” or keeping this technology accessible?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? Why do we have to? Why do companies get to take the creative output of humanity for free to make a profit? Why is it a national security issue? Because people who could make billions of dollars say so?
At some point, we have to look at this pragmatically. To me, it's not about FAANGs getting over on the every man, it's about making sure we maintain the opportunity of playing on the same field, with the same resources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Roger Bacon discovered what Gunpowder was capable of, he kept it to himself - he thought that once the poor knew how to make gunpowder, the poor would make weapons to destroy them. We cannot let that happen with AI technology, and it is a very difficult conversation when we're talking about technology that has already replaced likely hundreds of thousands of jobs in the form of extending the amount of productivi…
> But this is technology, in my opinion, has the risk of eventually triggering a form of social stratification. The focus should be on keeping the technology ubiquitous, accessible, and unrestricted. But this is exactly what proposals like you’re responding to are trying to do. Ignoring the morality this is an economic issue. Massive economic value is potentially going to be created by stealing from individuals. Why…
Nuance is needed, and I hope that they find it.