3 ms·

>They are calling for all AI (above a certain capability level) to be banned. Not just open, not just closed, all. Nah a lot are complaining about the licensin

>They are calling for all AI (above a certain capability level) to be banned. Not just open, not just closed, all. Nah a lot are complaining about the licensing of content because they think it will destroy it but instead would essentially mean image gen ai would only be feasible for companies like Google, Disney, Adobe to build. Not sure if you could even feasibly make GPT4 level models without a multi year timeline to sort out every licensing deal, by the end of it the subscription fee might only be viable for huge corps.

autoexec 3y ago
Which is why you have executives from OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google talking to congress about the harms of their own products. They're frantically trying to brake the bottoms rungs of the ladder until they're sure they can pull it up entirely and leave people with no option but to go through them.
simiones 3y ago
Given that you need monumental amounts of compute power to come close to something like GPT-4, I don't think the added costs of not treading on people's IP is the major moat that it's being made out to be.
- tavavex 3y ago
  The difference here is that compute is always getting cheaper. In 5 or 10 years, it may be feasible to train something GPT-4-sized for a small business. Not to mention that we're likely not at the highest efficiency yet, and there may be undiscovered methods of training better LLMs on lesser hardware. But licensing costs are not going to decrease. If dataset compilation is ruled to be something that needs to be paid for, it'd put a never-changing "must be worth $Xm or more" badge on any small AI company.
  - simiones 3y ago
    I don't agree. Companies seeking to make money from their IP have good reasons to provide different prices for different licensees. Why would the NYT ask Mom&Pop-AI for 100M dollars for their IP just because it wants 100M dollars from OpenAI?

autoexec 3y ago

Which is why you have executives from OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google talking to congress about the harms of their own products. They're frantically trying to brake the bottoms rungs of the ladder until they're sure they can pull it up entirely and leave people with no option but to go through them.

simiones 3y ago

Given that you need monumental amounts of compute power to come close to something like GPT-4, I don't think the added costs of not treading on people's IP is the major moat that it's being made out to be.

tavavex 3y ago
The difference here is that compute is always getting cheaper. In 5 or 10 years, it may be feasible to train something GPT-4-sized for a small business. Not to mention that we're likely not at the highest efficiency yet, and there may be undiscovered methods of training better LLMs on lesser hardware. But licensing costs are not going to decrease. If dataset compilation is ruled to be something that needs to be paid for, it'd put a never-changing "must be worth $Xm or more" badge on any small AI company.
- simiones 3y ago
  I don't agree. Companies seeking to make money from their IP have good reasons to provide different prices for different licensees. Why would the NYT ask Mom&Pop-AI for 100M dollars for their IP just because it wants 100M dollars from OpenAI?