4 ms·

Big tech would _love_ to "loose" these cases so they can gain a complete monopoly on it. It would take massive capital to pay the aggregate license holders, wor

• glimshe 3y ago
  Not paying will be even cheaper. They don't need this to obtain the de facto monopoly given the massive costs in training. Even if other companies offer their own AI, it will be for niche scenarios (like character creation for games), and training will use Big Tech's cloud resources. So they will corner general purpose AI and will extract hefty fees for special cases. If creators win, many companies will be unable to cover niches (which are unprofitable for Big Tech but not smaller companies, and will become more so with creator fees) and thus fewer resources will go to cloud services.
  • buildbot 3y ago
    > Not paying will be even cheaper. They don't need this to obtain the de facto monopoly given the massive costs in training. Even if other companies offer their own AI, it will be for niche scenarios (like character creation for games), and training will use Big Tech's cloud resources. The massive costs of training is why they will pay, in order to lock out others. If you spend _billions_ in training, who cares about a 10 million dollar dataset? The rest of you argument reads more like a push for exactly what the article calls for. Many companies will not be able to amass large datasets to attempt to compete with large companies if they have to pay for it. What happens if Cool AI Startup spends 50% of their funding on a dataset, but it's useless after months of experiments? Large companies can easily absorb those costs, small companies can't.