4,480 karma · joined December 16, 2014
Instead it is about empowering the masses. It's about being a rag tag hacker fighting to do stuff that other people want to stop you from doing.
I am saying that someone else would use that output to create or improve a different model. I think you could have figured out that this was the meaning of my statement instead of doing the irrelevant nitpick that you did.
Its also unrelated to my point, which is that person 1 could give the data from model A to person 2, and person 2 would be fine because they didn't sign any TOS contracts with model A, and the output from model AI is not copyrightable and therefore can be redistributed.
Additionally, it still doesn't address the point about how the original model trained on a bunch of other people's stuff without permission, so I don't see why the same shouldn't be done to their outputted content.
Do you have any substantive disagreements or are you just going to make a minute, incorrect nitpick and then not elaborate?
They should have exactly the same ability to "restrict" it is as the writer of a book on those who read the book that was purchased.
And seeing as those model providers were not restricted from training on those books.... It would follow that other people would have the exact same right to train on the output of the models.
I simply demand that model providers are treated exactly the same as the data that they trained on. Either it was OK for them to train on other people's work, en mass, without permission, over the objection of the creator, and therefore its OK to do the same to them.
or none of its ok, and they should presumably be equally sued into oblivion, and equally shut down completely by the government.
Thats all. Take your pick. Either all of the training on either books and all the models, without permission, is ok or none of it is.
Additionally, the output of a model isn't even copyrightable. So actually there would be even less protections for that. Because of this, it seems that anyone could use it for anything.
EX: 3rd parties aren't bound by the TOS of the models. So someone could simply do a passthrough, and give the uncopyrightable output to someone else to distill, and since the distiller didn't sign the TOS they would be in the clear to train on non copyrightable info.
Copyright infringement obviously.
> DOES NOT make a derivative for the purposes of copyright
Or maybe you have misunderstood the ruling and thats why the stocks of these companies hasn't plunged.
Seeing as your prediction completely failed, it seems way more likely that actually you just misunderstood the ruling.
Either everyone was stealing all along, and they should all be sued out of existence, or nobody is stealing.
Personally, I think its all fair use and support all of the training, including distilations.
Feel free to not make your own music videos, but I am not sure why you would be so upset about other people having fun.
And that is the diffusion of the beneficiaries. Maybe they think that OpenAI and Anthropic are actually worth, like a trillion dollars each and can therefore have value extracted from them. I'm not so convinced.
What if there aren't frontier labs spending billions on training a model. What if, instead, open source is at least mostly competitive with the top models. And if the models are open source (or weights, whatever you want to call it) the people benefiting are actually just rando people or startup founders.
What are you going to do if you want to extract this value from this diffuse set of beneficiaries? Put an arbitrary tax on anyone living on San Francisco or something??
The reality is that the author is trying to put the genie back into the bottle. All technological progress has winners and losers. It has people who are even benefiting from the rest of society and making personal gain based on that.
But, at the end of the day, doing accounting math on how much an individual benefited from a specific common good as vague as societal knowledge is impractical. And yet technological progress benefits all of society in a wholistic sense.
Additionally, the author focuses so much on the extraction of a public good, I am surprised that they failed to address that these labs are creating a public good as well. Who's to say that this "theft" is larger than the production of public goods that these labs give to the public in the first place.
I mean, my life has been massively improved by the fact that I have access to these models. And I'm not convinced that I have produce enough myself to outweigh this benefit that they are giving to me, so I consider it to be a fair trade.
The burden of proof seems like it's actually on you to show why this current tech boom is any different from previous ones.
As to the answer to your question, well just look at what people are doing at their jobs today. Those are what replaced jobs from 2 years ago.
I am not sure why you think social media attention needs to be gate kept.
He certainly wasn't expecting to have to shoot someone, but that's the case for most examples of self defense.
Just like I can learn from a book and nobody can make that illegal, so can other people transformative do the same with computers.
Fair use is fair use.
Because it's their model and business and they are free to use the free market to do exactly that?
That's their free market rights too. If you don't like it, use another model (which they would be fine with).
They are often both illegal and unenforced. Your old employer isn't going to waste time hiring a private detective to track down every former employee's new work place that you didn't include on LinkedIn.
It was always random. This is no different than any other randomness that already exists in LLMS.
If you are concerned just do benchmarks and see if it is valuable for your usecase regardless.
Just do benchmarks yourself on the new model and decide if it is valuable for your usecase, even with the supposed nerfing.
Benchmarks are benchmarks. And you can ignore the data at your own risk.
Also, they do all sorts of things. The big one was contributing to the deaths many people in syria. I think thats more than enough for countries to call them a terrorist organization as they do now.
Its pretty horrible. You can look it up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_involvement_in_the_S...
Nobody in those countries are seriously suggesting that there is going to be some war with Israel anytime soon, and relations are as good as they have ever been.
The much much more likely situation is that a third of gazans leave based on plans that western governments have made for gaza that are already public.
Thats the outcome that those groups are currently on a clear trajectory towards, that might not even be stoppable at this point, TBH.
Then what? More yelling online about "zionists" doesn't rebuild the mass rubble that gaza has already been turned into.
But hey, feel free to check up on gaza in a year and see if things have gotten any better, or if it has instead just been more people sacrificing their lives for nothing with no progress towards a better future.
Nuclear weapons are meant to stop countries from being destroyed, for every country that has thems.
Thats why countries get those nuclear weapons in the first place. To use in a last resort in case they are destroyed. They even have fancy words for it, like "mutually assured destruction".
I doubt you have invented a nuke shield. Meaning that, for all countries that have nuclear weapons, destroying them is a very bad idea.
> We of course care about human life
If you are talking so cavalierly about destroying a country that has nuclear weapons, it would not seem like you care much about the arab lives that live there. It seems like you would rather the arabs throw there lives away, for nothing, for decades to come. All for some silly obsession with destroying a nuclear armed country, no matter how many women and children have to die along to way to fail to do much of anything against them.
Just look around you dude. Gaza is entirely rubble. Most of Israel's enemies are in shambles, and former enemies of Israel from decades past have strong alliances with Israel now.
The axis of resistance failed. And coping about it will just get more arabs killed for nothing. Most people don't want to throw their lives away for nothing. They want to move on and have peace. And it is rich to see foreigners so giddy about the idea of more dead arabs sacrificing themselves for the cause.
But hey, its not like it really matters much anymore. I expect that Israel's enemies and Gaza's fate is sealed at this point, and when immigration opens up in a couple years 1/3rd to half of the population there will resettle outside of palestine. Its sad, but hey, most people there don't want to live in tents forever.
> The Assad regime fell
They didn't have nuclear weapons. And if they did, most people who aren't stupid would be hesitant about trying to destroy them.
> the Palestinians (and Muslims in general) do not have an issue with cohabitating with jews
Then the solution is simple. Give up on the idea of trying to destroy a nuclear armed country. Easy right? Just accept peace instead of risking the lives of all the arabs in the region for a doomed goal that only will kill many many many more arabs if it ever came anyone close to being enacted.
Saying that it's a bad idea to destroy Israel absolutely is Zionist.
It's accepting that Israel will exist and attempts to destroy it should not be enacted. In this case, because of the nuclear war.
> and is getting destroyed at this very moment.
No they aren't. Russia isn't going to collapse as a country. Thats ridiculous. The worst case scenario for them is continued economic damage and a full withdrawal from Ukraine.
But Moscow going under was never on the table, and yeah if it was actually truly threaten by an invading army, I'd absolutely expect nuclear weapons to be in the table.
To apply the same thing to Israel, sure in some wild world that isn't the current universe, I could see them being pushed out of, like their current Lebanon areas and for the fighting to stop in Gaza, ect. And nuclear weapons aren't going to be used.
But that's not the same as Jerusalem being threatened. Yes, if an invade army was taking over half the country, with boots on the ground, yes the nukes would fly.
It arguably almost happened in fact, in one of the previous Arab wars. Nothing even close to that will happen any time soon though (because Israel isn't losing).
A nuclear armed country wouldn't go down without a fight.
I'm also not sure who is even left to do anything about Israel. The entirety of Gaza is rubble and southern Lebanon is soon to follow. And Iran can't destroy Israel with its dwindling missile stocks, they'd need a ground army for that.
But if it actually came down to it, they would kill every last one of their enemies if their existence was actually threatened.
Given that fact, anyone who's wants it to be destroyed must have a seething deep hatred for the Palestinians and all the rest of the arabs that would die in the process.
I don't think most people out there hate the Palestinians so much that they would want to see them all die in nuclear hellfire, no.
But hey, maybe you know more people than I do that wouldn't care about the millions of Arabs that would die in the inevitable nuclear war.
Basically nobody in the USA wants it do that.
Thats pretty easy actually.
All you have to do is go into the setting page on the git repo and change the settings from private to public.
I'm sure most game devs are able to figure that one out.
Everything else that resolves was that is merely consequences for which I have little pitty for.
Israel has 200+ nuclear weapons. Most people aren't stupid enough to think that trying to destroy a country with 200+ nuclear weapons is a good idea.
If they understand this simply idea, that makes them a zionist, almost by definition.
Basically everyone in the US is a zionist. Especially once you point out that Israel has 200+ nuclear weapons and it would be a horrible idea to try and destroy them.