3 ms·

Information should be free for people. Not 150 billion dollar enterprises.

infecto 2y ago
Disagree. There should be no distinction between the two. Those kind of distinctions are what cause unfair advantages. If the information is available to consume, there should be no constraint on who uses it. Sure you might not like OpenAI, but maybe some other company comes a long and builds the next magical product using information that is freely available.
- TheRealDunkirk 2y ago
  Treating corporations as "people" for policy's sake is a legal decision which has essentially killed the premise of the US democratic republic. We are now, for all intents and purposes, a corporatocracy. Perhaps an even better description would simply be oligarchy, but since our oligarchs' wealth is almost all tied up in corporate stocks, it's a very incestuous relationship.
  - infecto 2y ago
    Meh, I am just saying I believe in open and free information. I don't follow the OP's ideal of information for me but not thee.
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
      The idea of knowledge as a source of understanding and personal growth is completely oppositional to it's conception as a scarce resource, which to OpenAI and whomever else wants to train LLMs is what it is. OpenAI did not read everything in the library because it wanted to know everything; it read everything at the library so it could teach a machine to create a statistical average written word generator, which it can then sell access to. These are fundamentally different concepts and if you don't see that, then I would say that is because you don't want to see it. I don't care if employees at OpenAI read books from their local library on python. More power to them. I don't even care if they copy the book for reference at work, still fine. But utilizing language at scale as a scarce resource to train models is not that and is not in any way analogous to it.
      - infecto 2y ago
        I am sorry you are too blinded by your own ideology and disagreement with OpenAI to see others points of views. In my view, I do not want to constrain any person or entity on their access to knowledge, regardless of output product. I do have issues with entities or people consuming knowledge and then prevent others from doing so. I am not describing a scenario of a scarce resource but of an open one. Public information should should be free for anyone to consume and use how they want.
        ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        > I am sorry you are too blinded by your own ideology and disagreement with OpenAI to see others points of views. A truly hilarious sentiment coming from someone making zero effort to actually engage with what I'm saying in favor of parroting back empty platitudes.

Disagree. There should be no distinction between the two. Those kind of distinctions are what cause unfair advantages. If the information is available to consume, there should be no constraint on who uses it. Sure you might not like OpenAI, but maybe some other company comes a long and builds the next magical product using information that is freely available.

TheRealDunkirk 2y ago
Treating corporations as "people" for policy's sake is a legal decision which has essentially killed the premise of the US democratic republic. We are now, for all intents and purposes, a corporatocracy. Perhaps an even better description would simply be oligarchy, but since our oligarchs' wealth is almost all tied up in corporate stocks, it's a very incestuous relationship.
- infecto 2y ago
  Meh, I am just saying I believe in open and free information. I don't follow the OP's ideal of information for me but not thee.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    The idea of knowledge as a source of understanding and personal growth is completely oppositional to it's conception as a scarce resource, which to OpenAI and whomever else wants to train LLMs is what it is. OpenAI did not read everything in the library because it wanted to know everything; it read everything at the library so it could teach a machine to create a statistical average written word generator, which it can then sell access to. These are fundamentally different concepts and if you don't see that, then I would say that is because you don't want to see it. I don't care if employees at OpenAI read books from their local library on python. More power to them. I don't even care if they copy the book for reference at work, still fine. But utilizing language at scale as a scarce resource to train models is not that and is not in any way analogous to it.
    - infecto 2y ago
      I am sorry you are too blinded by your own ideology and disagreement with OpenAI to see others points of views. In my view, I do not want to constrain any person or entity on their access to knowledge, regardless of output product. I do have issues with entities or people consuming knowledge and then prevent others from doing so. I am not describing a scenario of a scarce resource but of an open one. Public information should should be free for anyone to consume and use how they want.
      - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
        > I am sorry you are too blinded by your own ideology and disagreement with OpenAI to see others points of views. A truly hilarious sentiment coming from someone making zero effort to actually engage with what I'm saying in favor of parroting back empty platitudes.