[flagged]
They unleashed a massive new wave of spam and scams and garbage onto the Internet?
Because they’re stealing every single bit of content on the Internet and everywhere else they can get their hands on without paying anything for it and then expect to sell it back to us in chewed up garbage form?
They help single-handedly cause MS to blast past their carbon commitments by 30%? And got everyone else into a big race for how many resources they could waste to power AI nonsense that doesn’t even actually work that well for what people want to use it for?
Perhaps the fact that they don’t seem to care one bit about any of the consequences, legal/moral/ethical/economical/etc. caused by what they’ve done as long as they make money?
I don’t have a grudge against open AI. I have a grudge against the AI industry and the way these kind of SV golden boys seem to think they’re immune from criticism.
Why do you think stealing a professional actor’s voice should be OK and immune from criticism? This is horrible.
Stole someone's voice? That's not stealing, let's not pump more power for copyright propaganda even if this case is correct.
It’s important to nip that shit in the bud lest it spread.
If your business model only works if you steal stuff from other people you don’t have a business.
Where can I insert my money to buy every penguin random house book? How do I pay every deviant art artist whatever amount they're owed?
All of deviant art? Probably not. But do you need to train on all of that? You could certainly run ads telling people you’d be willing to pay a small amount to train on their art and let them choose.
Would it be legal to train against the national archives?
Options exist. No you won’t get as much stuff as you do by taking whatever you want, but people are being compensated for their work or at least being given the choice to opt in.
The reason why open-source AI exists at all is that we've always been allowing use of public data - it was okay when Google did it, it was okay when the Internet Archive did it, it was even okay when text translation services used that same data to train their models - or really, that applies to basically anything ML-driven before generative AI.
There's, like, a sea of reasons to criticize OpenAI for - but arguing for extending IP laws even further and calling out opponents for "literal theft" is one of the weaker options that caught on with many people.
ipso facto why does it not exist while spotify buys podcasts and kills them
It's really weird that someone would think that IP law is more important than access to information. Must be some dystopian bubble.
You can frame it however you like to make it justifiable, but I'm not going to get into the mud with you.
Cons: the rise of scams, carbon emissions, and, some think, existential risk.
Pros: ??? You can be more efficient at the email job you hate. And it gives you advice on gardening and home improvement so you don’t have to call your uncle.
Cons outweigh the pros
Kinda delegitimizes your cons list too. I'm not going to bother word-by-word checking your work.
Never attribute to jealousy that which can be explained by a difference of perspective.
Jealousy can explain any criticism of anybody. That makes it an epistemic hazard; you can always fall back to it, and you can develop a habit of doing so. And then you have deafened yourself. Any substantive criticisms will be lost on you. As will any opportunity to learn from those you disagree with. Your ideas will be hot house flowers, comfortable and safe in their controlled environment, but unable to contend in the wild. Aspire to weeds.
If you choose to do nothing with that information, that's up to you.
People aren't as selfish/petty as you're making them out.
Well. This reaction invites further psychological interpretations, lol.