3 ms·

This is an argument in bad faith but at this point I have zero trust in corporations and feel like you can generally count on them to do shitty things if they c

This is an argument in bad faith but at this point I have zero trust in corporations and feel like you can generally count on them to do shitty things if they can benefit from it so I can be easily swayed by little proof at this point.

recursive 4y ago
What's the argument? What's been done by anyone that's shitty? I don't even understand the point of this post. As far as I know, the current wave of text-based AIs is trained on all text accessible on the internet. Would it be a scandal to learn that ChatGPT is trained on wikipedia? Reddit? What is even the argument here, good faith or otherwise?
- mdgrech23 4y ago
  The argument is these companies are using our ideas created by us humans in this thing called the interenet for free and without attribution and it's problematic.
  - visarga 4y ago
    You can't own ideas, they got their own life-cycle.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      Right, but I do think you can "own" (by which I mean our societally-mediated legal definition of ownership in the anglosphere) specific sequences of text or at least the right to copy them?
  - abstrakraft 4y ago
    I'm not necessarily arguing against you, but "problematic" is too generic a term to be useful. Genocide is "problematic". Having to run to the bathroom every 5 minutes to blow my runny nose is "problematic". What do you actually mean?
  - dimitrios1 4y ago
    Responding to sibling comment: We need some clarification here: are we speaking about just ideas in the abstract sense, or ideas that have been fleshed out i.e "materialized" If the latter, there are many laws that say you can own an idea, provided it exists somewhere.
- visarga 4y ago
  From an open source point of view it would be better if scraping proprietary LLMs would be allowed. Small LMs need this infusion of data to develop. But the big news is that it works, just a bit of data can have a large impact on the open source LLMs. OpenAI can't have a moat in their proprietary RLHF dataset. Public models leak, they can be distilled.
canadianfella 4y ago
What shitty things are you talking about?

recursive 4y ago

What's the argument? What's been done by anyone that's shitty? I don't even understand the point of this post. As far as I know, the current wave of text-based AIs is trained on all text accessible on the internet. Would it be a scandal to learn that ChatGPT is trained on wikipedia? Reddit? What is even the argument here, good faith or otherwise?

mdgrech23 4y ago
The argument is these companies are using our ideas created by us humans in this thing called the interenet for free and without attribution and it's problematic.
- visarga 4y ago
  You can't own ideas, they got their own life-cycle.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Right, but I do think you can "own" (by which I mean our societally-mediated legal definition of ownership in the anglosphere) specific sequences of text or at least the right to copy them?
- abstrakraft 4y ago
  I'm not necessarily arguing against you, but "problematic" is too generic a term to be useful. Genocide is "problematic". Having to run to the bathroom every 5 minutes to blow my runny nose is "problematic". What do you actually mean?
- dimitrios1 4y ago
  Responding to sibling comment: We need some clarification here: are we speaking about just ideas in the abstract sense, or ideas that have been fleshed out i.e "materialized" If the latter, there are many laws that say you can own an idea, provided it exists somewhere.
visarga 4y ago
From an open source point of view it would be better if scraping proprietary LLMs would be allowed. Small LMs need this infusion of data to develop. But the big news is that it works, just a bit of data can have a large impact on the open source LLMs. OpenAI can't have a moat in their proprietary RLHF dataset. Public models leak, they can be distilled.

canadianfella 4y ago

What shitty things are you talking about?