4 ms·

Settle down, Richard. You really think Open Source is going to solve the problem? I love the FOSS as much as the next man, but it's not some holy panacea for a

Settle down, Richard. You really think Open Source is going to solve the problem? I love the FOSS as much as the next man, but it's not some holy panacea for all of our freedom-loving woes. RIAA doesn't have to sue the developer in Russia, they can just take the legal fight to the consumers (and they HAVE done so).

alwayslikethis 4y ago
How would they tell? RIAA has no right to check your computers. I doubt it would be possible to outright ban the software from existing or being installed since it has totally legal uses too.
sillysaurusx 4y ago
I think open source is more important and relevant than ever, especially in an era when LLMs are controlled by a select few. But we can both say “Nu uh” and “yes huh” at each other and it won’t really advance the discussion. Do you have specific examples?
- deafpolygon 4y ago
  Every time the doomsday of AI is heralded by some folks here , they go "but-but, Open Source is the solution!" No, regulation is the solution. Learn about politics, learn the local and federal laws and get on the horn with people if you're so concerned.
  - sillysaurusx 4y ago
    I didn’t say anything about the doomsday scenario, nor that open source is a solution.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > No, regulation is the solution. Learn about politics, learn the local and federal laws and get on the horn with people if you’re so concerned. I have a degree in political science, completed about half of law school before deciding I didn’t want to leave technology, have worked in and around government for most of the last 25 year. Transparency—and open source plays a big part in this—in the answer. Regulation can be important to, but if there isn’t transparency in the field (even if not for all models, though that will be important) and particularly for anything adopted for important use in administering policy and pressure from the open source community on proprietary vendors, the dangers of AI are magnified. Yes, I know people tied to the big vendors are selling the idea that opacity and regulatory restrictions are the answer, and I’m telling you read Adam Smith: The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. That’s why you hear that story.
bharathyes 4y ago
didnt they try that with youtube-dl ? though they were able to partially take down the repo it was brought back after the legality ot their claim was analyzed.
- alwayslikethis 4y ago
  That's the perils of using a proprietary service beholden to the law of the US. Ideally you would want redundant services in different jurisdictions to circumvent takedown requests like this. It is crucial to have control of your infrastructure, even if it may be mirrored elsewhere.

alwayslikethis 4y ago

How would they tell? RIAA has no right to check your computers. I doubt it would be possible to outright ban the software from existing or being installed since it has totally legal uses too.

sillysaurusx 4y ago

I think open source is more important and relevant than ever, especially in an era when LLMs are controlled by a select few. But we can both say “Nu uh” and “yes huh” at each other and it won’t really advance the discussion. Do you have specific examples?

deafpolygon 4y ago
Every time the doomsday of AI is heralded by some folks here , they go "but-but, Open Source is the solution!" No, regulation is the solution. Learn about politics, learn the local and federal laws and get on the horn with people if you're so concerned.
- sillysaurusx 4y ago
  I didn’t say anything about the doomsday scenario, nor that open source is a solution.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > No, regulation is the solution. Learn about politics, learn the local and federal laws and get on the horn with people if you’re so concerned. I have a degree in political science, completed about half of law school before deciding I didn’t want to leave technology, have worked in and around government for most of the last 25 year. Transparency—and open source plays a big part in this—in the answer. Regulation can be important to, but if there isn’t transparency in the field (even if not for all models, though that will be important) and particularly for anything adopted for important use in administering policy and pressure from the open source community on proprietary vendors, the dangers of AI are magnified. Yes, I know people tied to the big vendors are selling the idea that opacity and regulatory restrictions are the answer, and I’m telling you read Adam Smith: The interest of the dealers, however, in any particular branch of trade or manufactures, is always in some respects different from, and even opposite to, that of the public. To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. That’s why you hear that story.

bharathyes 4y ago

didnt they try that with youtube-dl ? though they were able to partially take down the repo it was brought back after the legality ot their claim was analyzed.

alwayslikethis 4y ago
That's the perils of using a proprietary service beholden to the law of the US. Ideally you would want redundant services in different jurisdictions to circumvent takedown requests like this. It is crucial to have control of your infrastructure, even if it may be mirrored elsewhere.