5 ms·

Would be funny if NT Times won this and all commercial LLMs were shut down. Then LLMs would be distributed only via torrents, like most copyright infringing me

Would be funny if NT Times won this and all commercial LLMs were shut down. Then LLMs would be distributed only via torrents, like most copyright infringing media.

__loam 3y ago
Making these things anathema to commercial interests and making training them at scale legally perilous would be a huge win.
- mdekkers 3y ago
  > making training them at scale legally perilous would be a huge win. Why?
  - fsckboy 3y ago
    I have no idea what he's thinking, but if everybody in the community here had an LLM in their pocket and large orgs did not, it would at least be kind of fun.
  - __loam 3y ago
    The open source people can continue to pretend they matter in this field and large corporations like Microsoft will stop stealing everything that moves on the internet.
  - anonymousab 3y ago
    Because the megacorps should have to pay the people creating the works they are training their multibillion/eventual multitrillion dollar systems on, and should get a nice rake to the face when they try to do an end run around it.
- StableAlkyne 3y ago
  A huge win for countries with lax copyright laws. These things aren't going away, the worst case scenario would be exactly that scenario playing out - then China (or some other peer to the US's tech sector) just continues developing them to achieve an economic advantage. All in addition to the obvious political implications of AI chatbots being controlled by them. The LLM genie is out of the bottle: an unfavorable court ruling in a single country isn't going to stuff it back in.
  - geysersam 3y ago
    Do LLM really give an economic advantage though? I've mostly seen them used to write quirky poems and bad code. People are scrambling to find use-cases but it's not very convincing so far. On the other hand, if LLM are used to "launder" copyright content and, accepting the premises of copyright law, this has the effect of reducing incentives to do creative work, that has obvious negative implications for economic productivity.
    - StableAlkyne 3y ago
      > I've mostly seen them used to write quirky poems and bad code. Assuming this is in good faith: the ability to write code, documentation, and tests is absolutely a productivity enhancer to an existing programmer. The code snippets from a dedicated tool like copilot are of very usable quality if you're using a popular language like Python or JS.
  - __loam 3y ago
    I don't give a shit about what China does.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  >making training them at scale legally perilous Loading data to which you have no rights over into your software is legally perilous, yes. It's as easy as simply asking for and receiving permission from the data's rightsholders (which might require exchange of coin) to make it not legally perilous.
  - __loam 3y ago
    Sounds expensive.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      If you want to do things with other people's stuff, yes it can get expensive.
realusername 3y ago
They would still thrive but in other countries with other legal frameworks. The concept is way too valuable to disappear.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  If its economically relevant us will use its iron fist to have its laws adopted the world over, like most things such as copyright or drugs
  - realusername 3y ago
    They could but that would pretty much mean giving up the tech supremacy to China since they won't apply it. China already doesn't care much about copyright so that's not going to stop them. I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to convince the EU though, the EU has an history of giving up rights and markets to big copyright holders even if that hurts the local companies.
sgt101 3y ago
What will happen in this case is that large content providers will get paid directly and smaller content providers will get rolled up into a licensing bag and get small indirect payouts. For example, we might see a model where people who's books have been used will get a pay out proportionate to the sales of the book (perhaps), so if your books sells just a few thousand copies expect $20 but if you sell millions expect $20k LLM's will become more expensive and less attractive as money printers, this will screw with the business models of the direct provision folks like OpenAI, MS and Google, MS and Google will only shed tears for money spent while OpenAI will just not have as good an income stream until they think of something new.
- davedx 3y ago
  > large content providers will get paid directly I'm sure that's what they want, but I'm not sure that's what the outcome will be. What if they want to charge a prohibitive amount of money for their content?
  - sgt101 3y ago
    Dunno - but my guess is that the price will be what the market will bear... I think Spotify vs Napster is a good example, content creators in news (the Journalists) are already in a hard place (vs. successful rock stars preinternet) I think that the news providers are rather like the music lables.
- rvba 3y ago
  What will happen is that all will go to China and maaaybe some third world country, or run your own models from shady sources. So you will use a Chinese AI that spies on you, or you will use some shady service from a shady country (that will play cat and mouse like torrent sites).. or most likely you will run your own model when you are computer literate and no model if you are not. Actually most models are so lobotomized allready that probably better to run your own, as long as you have a good enough computer.
  - sgt101 3y ago

Would be funny if NT Times won this and all commercial LLMs were shut down. Then LLMs would be distributed only via torrents, like most copyright infringing media.

__loam 3y ago

Making these things anathema to commercial interests and making training them at scale legally perilous would be a huge win.

mdekkers 3y ago
> making training them at scale legally perilous would be a huge win. Why?
- fsckboy 3y ago
  I have no idea what he's thinking, but if everybody in the community here had an LLM in their pocket and large orgs did not, it would at least be kind of fun.
- __loam 3y ago
  The open source people can continue to pretend they matter in this field and large corporations like Microsoft will stop stealing everything that moves on the internet.
- anonymousab 3y ago
  Because the megacorps should have to pay the people creating the works they are training their multibillion/eventual multitrillion dollar systems on, and should get a nice rake to the face when they try to do an end run around it.
StableAlkyne 3y ago
A huge win for countries with lax copyright laws. These things aren't going away, the worst case scenario would be exactly that scenario playing out - then China (or some other peer to the US's tech sector) just continues developing them to achieve an economic advantage. All in addition to the obvious political implications of AI chatbots being controlled by them. The LLM genie is out of the bottle: an unfavorable court ruling in a single country isn't going to stuff it back in.
- geysersam 3y ago
  Do LLM really give an economic advantage though? I've mostly seen them used to write quirky poems and bad code. People are scrambling to find use-cases but it's not very convincing so far. On the other hand, if LLM are used to "launder" copyright content and, accepting the premises of copyright law, this has the effect of reducing incentives to do creative work, that has obvious negative implications for economic productivity.
  - StableAlkyne 3y ago
    > I've mostly seen them used to write quirky poems and bad code. Assuming this is in good faith: the ability to write code, documentation, and tests is absolutely a productivity enhancer to an existing programmer. The code snippets from a dedicated tool like copilot are of very usable quality if you're using a popular language like Python or JS.
- __loam 3y ago
  I don't give a shit about what China does.
Dalewyn 3y ago
>making training them at scale legally perilous Loading data to which you have no rights over into your software is legally perilous, yes. It's as easy as simply asking for and receiving permission from the data's rightsholders (which might require exchange of coin) to make it not legally perilous.
- __loam 3y ago
  Sounds expensive.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    If you want to do things with other people's stuff, yes it can get expensive.

realusername 3y ago

They would still thrive but in other countries with other legal frameworks. The concept is way too valuable to disappear.

kjkjadksj 3y ago
If its economically relevant us will use its iron fist to have its laws adopted the world over, like most things such as copyright or drugs
- realusername 3y ago
  They could but that would pretty much mean giving up the tech supremacy to China since they won't apply it. China already doesn't care much about copyright so that's not going to stop them. I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to convince the EU though, the EU has an history of giving up rights and markets to big copyright holders even if that hurts the local companies.

sgt101 3y ago

What will happen in this case is that large content providers will get paid directly and smaller content providers will get rolled up into a licensing bag and get small indirect payouts. For example, we might see a model where people who's books have been used will get a pay out proportionate to the sales of the book (perhaps), so if your books sells just a few thousand copies expect $20 but if you sell millions expect $20k LLM's will become more expensive and less attractive as money printers, this will screw with the business models of the direct provision folks like OpenAI, MS and Google, MS and Google will only shed tears for money spent while OpenAI will just not have as good an income stream until they think of something new.

davedx 3y ago
> large content providers will get paid directly I'm sure that's what they want, but I'm not sure that's what the outcome will be. What if they want to charge a prohibitive amount of money for their content?
- sgt101 3y ago
  Dunno - but my guess is that the price will be what the market will bear... I think Spotify vs Napster is a good example, content creators in news (the Journalists) are already in a hard place (vs. successful rock stars preinternet) I think that the news providers are rather like the music lables.
rvba 3y ago
What will happen is that all will go to China and maaaybe some third world country, or run your own models from shady sources. So you will use a Chinese AI that spies on you, or you will use some shady service from a shady country (that will play cat and mouse like torrent sites).. or most likely you will run your own model when you are computer literate and no model if you are not. Actually most models are so lobotomized allready that probably better to run your own, as long as you have a good enough computer.
- sgt101 3y ago