Comment by zetazzed | Hacker News Reader

Comment by zetazzed | Hacker News Reader

Ok, but how do the economics of this work? Based on its settlement, Anthropic paid an average of $3000 per work they scanned based on their settlement (https://tech-insider.org/au/anthropic-copyright-settlement-2...). They and OpenAI pay billions per year for a mix of experts and normal people to label or create data. Why would they continue doing this if the value of this is immediately copied by open models? If your goal is to end the economics of generating and buying data for AI (and I recognize for some people this is really the goal) then sure, but if you want AI for various subfields of interest to continue improving then it's not workable.

Back when people made arguments for software privacy, the argument was usually "big business will still pay and consumers wouldn't have paid anyways so it's ok for us to pirate" - I actually think that was fine for business software but terrible for indie games, whose market was 0% businesses.

But in the AI case, it's not like they get to keep some of the value of their investment - it all gets cloned into models that businesses and consumers alike are happy to use. If someone knows how labs could continue to fund data creation and acquisition in this model, please do share!

They can’t they’re literally fucked, and it’s not society’s problem! The whole world doesn't have to bend over to make sure a couple of lunatics who believe they are building a doomsday weapon also have a viable business model

This made me laugh out loud but ain't it the truth.

Somehow people who think open models will lead to infinite abundance and people who think open models will kill AI development are both liking this post.

> Anthropic paid an average of $3000 per work they scanned based on their settlement

Not sure you get to count breaking the law and getting in trouble in your cost-of-doing-business. That's a little too on the nose.

You're basically arguing that a criminal syndicate must be allowed to continue and we're required to make their business model make sense?

> You're basically arguing that a criminal syndicate must be allowed to continue and we're required to make their business model make sense?

This is how Uber worked. They didn't just break the law in different countries, in several they actively misled government/law enforcement investigations. Google "Greyball".

Oh I'm aware that they're ~all assholes and many have gotten away with worse. It just seems like a poor argument that we're required to make it happen for them.

Surely if you hoover up every book in existence to feed into an ai model you must be extracting more than 1.5B in value. If not then it’s not a viable business.

%99 of the startups fail, they are venture backed. Nobody or no market forced them to spend like that. It's all their decisions

Reply on news.ycombinator.com