4 ms·

Grim. This is just confirmation that the future of llms will be a walled garden of big tech and big rights holders. There's no open ecosystem if content needs t

by artninja1988 2y ago

Grim. This is just confirmation that the future of llms will be a walled garden of big tech and big rights holders. There's no open ecosystem if content needs to be licensed at prohibitive prices for small players/ universities/ open source. Between this and them lobbying for regulation closed ai is obviously pulling up the ladder behind them now that they're valued at $80 billion from being reportedly on the brink of bankruptcy just a few years ago before chatgpt

sylvainkalache 2y ago
The publishing industry is in big trouble; journalists are fired, and publications are closing. Ads are not enough, and readers are fed up with ads, so they use adblockers, cutting publications' revenues. With AI chatbots, people browse these publications even less, further reducing revenues. Paywall and licensing content is the next best option, if not what it is?
- nickthegreek 2y ago
  Just wanted to chime in and say that I think you are both right. I haven't thought of a way to square this circle yet. I find this issue to be the fundamental concern around generative AI. Of course the Courts could always end up saying its fair game and at that point, I could see OpenAI no longer paying. And then content producers are more likely to gate content in a myriad of ways and the cat and mouse game will continue. I could also see the US say scraping is allowed and EU saying otherwise.
- __loam 2y ago
  It seems to me that half the closures happen after some wealthy ass hole that seems to hate journalists buys a publication then runs it into the ground.
- slt2021 2y ago
  publishing indstury maybe be in trouble, but publishing itself is not. content creators are going direct to consumer with their content, and there is endless opportunity for actual content creators to thrive without publishing houses as middlemen
__loam 2y ago
If you can't run your business without violating the property rights of millions of people, maybe your business shouldn't exist.
- artninja1988 2y ago
  These models will exist one way or another. Even the most IP concerned lawmakers in the deepest pockets of the RIAA and whatnot. It's just that some want there to be monopoly rents payed to themselves every time someone uses them
  - nomel 2y ago
    Maybe profit caps for models that use licensed/copyright content would make sense? That would leave general use of open source models alone, while still having the potential to flow money to the right people.
  - jsheard 2y ago
    > These models will exist one way or another. This line of reasoning seems more or less equivalent to "movie piracy will exist one way or another, therefore I should be allowed to launch a commercial Netflix competitor which streams movies without paying the studios". Just because it's possible to appropriate content doesn't mean we should just give up and put it in the public domain, that's obviously not sustainable.
    - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
      Actually that sounds great. Commercial piracy netflix competitor please and thank you.
      - jsheard 2y ago
        Sounds great until the entertainment industry collapses because the inconvenience barrier which kept piracy at reasonable levels vanishes, with every theatre, TV channel and streaming service suddenly no longer paying for anything they show. I think you know that's not going to work.
mvdtnz 2y ago
Sounds good to me. I don't see why anyone else should feel they have the rights to content just to train crappy chat bots. Real people with real families and real mortgages created that content.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  In this case is it better that they get money and rich people consolidate more power over an emerging and likely influential technology, or is it better that they don’t and open source is able to flourish?
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  They're only licensing what they have to under threat of lawsuit. Little people's data will still be taken without refund.
SirMaster 2y ago
What's the alternative? Do you feel that entities like The Financial Times should just willingly or be forced to give up all their data to the public?
- cess11 2y ago
  Sure. Just like it always was, like when libraries buy magazines and papers and archive them, giving the public access to their contents.
  - sgt101 2y ago
    The difference is that mega-corps are ripping off content and reselling it. I hope that the FT can sustain itself for a long time using the money from this deal.
    - cess11 2y ago
      OK, so you think this is something new? There are no examples of mega-corporations "ripping off" and "reselling" from, say, the sixties?
- 0xedd 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - sgt101 2y ago
    Do you work for free? If so - if you are a volunteer and do not take state aid or use funds from your inheritance - then your position is defensible. If not, then I invite you to look at the huge attrition of journalism jobs in the UK and the USA. Local newsrooms have been destroyed by the web and national newsrooms have been gutted. Folks that create content should be allowed to monetize content - in exactly the same way that I am allowed to monetize the work I do.
    - pksebben 2y ago
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
This is fine because LLMs are a dead end. If LLMs are the core of 'AI' then I'm not interested, but I feel confident they're a sideshow on the way to stronger AI. Lets avoid the huge mistake that was made with the internet, where the web happened to be the first broadly useful tool which exploded in popularity and then de facto became the internet, with everything shoehorned into it. The problem is, on the scale of possible interfaces and software, the web is absolute shite, but now its gravity is too great and we can't escape it. I've tried to use LLMs but they're just not useful. Getting answers that may be great or may be nonsense just doesn't work for me. I know there is something better and I won't be distracted by a very impressive novelty.
- throwup238 2y ago
  I don't think they're a dead end, they're just a very small piece of a much bigger puzzle. LLMs are to AI what word2vec was to machine learning - it's the key to encoding language in a way that algorithms can operate on but they need to be connected to a bunch of other systems to really be useful. I think it'll be a while before we perfect memory, neuroplasticity, the physical experimentation feedback loop, etc. but LLMs at least give us a way to represent and manipulate human language.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
    > just a very small piece of a much bigger puzzle I agree with that, but plenty of people are talking about LLMs as the precursor to AGI, especially the OpenAI crowd. Plenty of people here and elsewhere say that LLMs are actually intelligent. I think LLMs are an important illustration of what's possible, but it's not the one true way.
andy99 2y ago
OpenAI and other big VC funded LLM companies were all destined for enshittification anyway. They'll try and regulatory capture their way to monopoly and then offer a much worse product for more money. Luckily (hopefully) the cat is out of the bag and there are enough good, geographically diverse alternatives to prevent any serious regulatory capture efforts. Worst case we'll all be fleeing to the freedom of the Chinese LLMs.

sylvainkalache 2y ago

The publishing industry is in big trouble; journalists are fired, and publications are closing. Ads are not enough, and readers are fed up with ads, so they use adblockers, cutting publications' revenues. With AI chatbots, people browse these publications even less, further reducing revenues. Paywall and licensing content is the next best option, if not what it is?

nickthegreek 2y ago
Just wanted to chime in and say that I think you are both right. I haven't thought of a way to square this circle yet. I find this issue to be the fundamental concern around generative AI. Of course the Courts could always end up saying its fair game and at that point, I could see OpenAI no longer paying. And then content producers are more likely to gate content in a myriad of ways and the cat and mouse game will continue. I could also see the US say scraping is allowed and EU saying otherwise.
__loam 2y ago
It seems to me that half the closures happen after some wealthy ass hole that seems to hate journalists buys a publication then runs it into the ground.
slt2021 2y ago
publishing indstury maybe be in trouble, but publishing itself is not. content creators are going direct to consumer with their content, and there is endless opportunity for actual content creators to thrive without publishing houses as middlemen

__loam 2y ago

If you can't run your business without violating the property rights of millions of people, maybe your business shouldn't exist.

artninja1988 2y ago
These models will exist one way or another. Even the most IP concerned lawmakers in the deepest pockets of the RIAA and whatnot. It's just that some want there to be monopoly rents payed to themselves every time someone uses them
- nomel 2y ago
  Maybe profit caps for models that use licensed/copyright content would make sense? That would leave general use of open source models alone, while still having the potential to flow money to the right people.
- jsheard 2y ago
  > These models will exist one way or another. This line of reasoning seems more or less equivalent to "movie piracy will exist one way or another, therefore I should be allowed to launch a commercial Netflix competitor which streams movies without paying the studios". Just because it's possible to appropriate content doesn't mean we should just give up and put it in the public domain, that's obviously not sustainable.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    Actually that sounds great. Commercial piracy netflix competitor please and thank you.
    - jsheard 2y ago
      Sounds great until the entertainment industry collapses because the inconvenience barrier which kept piracy at reasonable levels vanishes, with every theatre, TV channel and streaming service suddenly no longer paying for anything they show. I think you know that's not going to work.

mvdtnz 2y ago

Sounds good to me. I don't see why anyone else should feel they have the rights to content just to train crappy chat bots. Real people with real families and real mortgages created that content.

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
In this case is it better that they get money and rich people consolidate more power over an emerging and likely influential technology, or is it better that they don’t and open source is able to flourish?
philipwhiuk 2y ago
They're only licensing what they have to under threat of lawsuit. Little people's data will still be taken without refund.

SirMaster 2y ago

What's the alternative? Do you feel that entities like The Financial Times should just willingly or be forced to give up all their data to the public?

cess11 2y ago
Sure. Just like it always was, like when libraries buy magazines and papers and archive them, giving the public access to their contents.
- sgt101 2y ago
  The difference is that mega-corps are ripping off content and reselling it. I hope that the FT can sustain itself for a long time using the money from this deal.
  - cess11 2y ago
    OK, so you think this is something new? There are no examples of mega-corporations "ripping off" and "reselling" from, say, the sixties?
0xedd 2y ago
[flagged]
- sgt101 2y ago
  Do you work for free? If so - if you are a volunteer and do not take state aid or use funds from your inheritance - then your position is defensible. If not, then I invite you to look at the huge attrition of journalism jobs in the UK and the USA. Local newsrooms have been destroyed by the web and national newsrooms have been gutted. Folks that create content should be allowed to monetize content - in exactly the same way that I am allowed to monetize the work I do.
  - pksebben 2y ago

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago

This is fine because LLMs are a dead end. If LLMs are the core of 'AI' then I'm not interested, but I feel confident they're a sideshow on the way to stronger AI. Lets avoid the huge mistake that was made with the internet, where the web happened to be the first broadly useful tool which exploded in popularity and then de facto became the internet, with everything shoehorned into it. The problem is, on the scale of possible interfaces and software, the web is absolute shite, but now its gravity is too great and we can't escape it. I've tried to use LLMs but they're just not useful. Getting answers that may be great or may be nonsense just doesn't work for me. I know there is something better and I won't be distracted by a very impressive novelty.

throwup238 2y ago
I don't think they're a dead end, they're just a very small piece of a much bigger puzzle. LLMs are to AI what word2vec was to machine learning - it's the key to encoding language in a way that algorithms can operate on but they need to be connected to a bunch of other systems to really be useful. I think it'll be a while before we perfect memory, neuroplasticity, the physical experimentation feedback loop, etc. but LLMs at least give us a way to represent and manipulate human language.
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
  > just a very small piece of a much bigger puzzle I agree with that, but plenty of people are talking about LLMs as the precursor to AGI, especially the OpenAI crowd. Plenty of people here and elsewhere say that LLMs are actually intelligent. I think LLMs are an important illustration of what's possible, but it's not the one true way.

andy99 2y ago

OpenAI and other big VC funded LLM companies were all destined for enshittification anyway. They'll try and regulatory capture their way to monopoly and then offer a much worse product for more money. Luckily (hopefully) the cat is out of the bag and there are enough good, geographically diverse alternatives to prevent any serious regulatory capture efforts. Worst case we'll all be fleeing to the freedom of the Chinese LLMs.