I hope the data that has been found so far is going to big enough going forward, but it's incredibly unfortunate that this is happening.
I hope all the people making these decisions wake up with a bad headache and severe heartburn tomorrow.
Suppose that deep-pocketed AI companies were paying Reddit, Stack Overflow, etc. to make it harder for other AI upstarts to access those data. I.e., to build a mote by denying competitors access to previously accessible data sets.
Would that violate antitrust laws in various major markets?
What we need is a legal way for companies to keep the data open, but also require OpenAI and friends to pay them for it.
Couldn't that be accomplished by a law or ruling that using something for training AI doesn't exempt you from having to follow its license? OpenAI is already in blatant violation of both the "BY" and "SA" parts of the existing license.
Let's say I take a collection of images and use a program to compress them. When decompressed, the images are close to, but not exactly the same as the originals. Despite being in a different format, and despite not being exactly the same as the originals, the copyright to the compressed images is still held by whoever previously held it.
If I take the collection of images from earlier and train a diffusion model based on it, I'm essentially just compressing it a different way. With the right prompt, you can get out something very similar to what you put in.
If you remember it and make something that is a distinct work, something that may be steals the idea without reproducing any of its elements, that's never been considered under copyright.
I think that's going to be the litmus test for these AI. If you can get them to produce out both that is this things from anything else, it's not going to be a copyright violation because it's not a copy of anything.
Not really. If diffusion models were compression they'd be so lossy as to be totally worthless
inherently not possible as then it would not be "open" to begin with.
I understand the idea, it's not truly open in that case, but so long as the ability to build new things on it and prosper from it is preserved im alright.
The key is that it's not doing something like trying to restrict you from using it in a certain way, only requiring you give a fair share of profits.
This was, fun fact, the original purpose of patents. They weren't designed to keep things closed and owned by individuals, they were designed to allow people to freely share and make a profit so that ideas could be built on by each other. The patent system is turned into this corrupted terrible mess where things are almost never shared through licensing or payment, and it's just a way to build monopolistic enterprises nowadays.
An open source system that allows for this sort of payment would also allow for many many more things to be open when currently the bad actors who will build and take that work and just never pay you back for it.
There are people who do not consider that "open".
See the whole debacle about what exactly constitutes "open source"
Who? Even Richard Stallman is okay with what they do: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions
In any case the software world has changed drastically since that article has been published.
"open" is not like 1+1=2. ultimately it is arbitrary. one definition of open is "to make available", by that definition all of them, including CockroachDB are "open".
open does not necessarily mean you can use it, just like how an open door does not necessarily mean you can enter the house.
in any case, we can agree to disagree.
"Open source" is defined by the Open Source definition according to the OSI [1]. In saying that, I realize that every couple of years somebody tries to claim that their understanding of the term "open source" should trump the one the community has settled on. I personally am not ready to acquiesce to this semantic drift, at least, not yet.
mote: a small particle, speck, atom, "mote of dust"
moat: a deep ditch, often filled with water, as a first line of defence around a castle.
Are there any AGPL-like licenses that address this?