5 ms·
Is an LLM that slurps up all data created ever, without compensating the creators of that data, and then charges for that access not the definition of "rent see
by nickfromseattle 3y ago
Is an LLM that slurps up all data created ever, without compensating the creators of that data, and then charges for that access not the definition of "rent seeking"?
Next question, does this share similarities with academic journals that most folks do consider rent seeking organization?
- satvikpendem 3y agoI never said that was okay either. LLMs should be open source and open data. Yes, this viewpoint shares similarities with academic journals that also rent seek.
- throw74774 3y agoHow do you propose that LLMs are paid for?
- satvikpendem 3y agoThrough government funds, as other public works projects are. Or if people want to privately create their own, they can do so, as long as the results are open.
- throw74774 3y agoWhy should just LLMs be funded that way and not all software?
- satvikpendem 3y agoYou're right, all software should be funded that way.
- throw74774 3y agoWho would decide what to fund?
- satvikpendem 3y agoHow are public works projects funded now? Same way. And if corporations want to fund certain projects too, they can. It's simple, extrapolate how we fund current projects and do the same with software, it's not that complicated.
- throw74774 3y agoEarlier you said: > In my viewpoint, something one makes which can be built upon by another freely and without limit is what helps humanity. Now you are saying that LLMs, and maybe even all software, should only be funded by the approval of appointed government committees. Do you not see the contradiction in your viewpoint?
- satvikpendem 3y agoDid you miss the parts where I mentioned that private individuals and corporations can also fund their own software, as we do today? My point is that as long as code, models, and data are open source, we will be free to mix and match and improve upon them, instead of only having rich corporations hold them. One way to do so is to have the government fund projects and open source them, as an alternative to corporate closed source control.
- throw74774 3y ago> Did you miss the parts where I mentioned that private individuals and corporations can also fund their own software, as we do today? You aren’t being honest. Today we’re allowed to fund our own software and use it as we please for private purposes or to license it to others. Today there is no law forcing us to give it away. This isn’t what you are proposing.
- 3y ago
- nickfromseattle 3y agoThank you for the interesting discussion! > I never said that was okay either. LLMs should be open source and open data. > That is one reason why I abhor copyright, patents, and intellectual property in general. If it turns out that closed-source LLMs become the most valuable companies in the world, any thoughts on how to align / reconcile your ideals around the reality of how the technology has developed in my hypothetical example?
- satvikpendem 3y agoThere are multiple gradations of value. Linux exists even as Windows and macOS does also. They each have different strengths and weaknesses. It could be the case that only closed source LLMs are the most prevalent, but we have open source LLMs already available today that run on device and for free essentially. I don't necessarily see the world only moving towards closed source LLMs.