3 ms·
I would argue that it's right call: 1) it's in the world's best interest. I am running llama locally on laptop, and the ability to have the distilled world's kn
by resiros 2y ago
I would argue that it's right call:
1) it's in the world's best interest. I am running llama locally on laptop, and the ability to have the distilled world's knowledge at your fingertips will generate much much more value than what it takes.
2) it does not 'take' any value from the book creators. No one's going to 'not buy a book' because an LLM has been trained with its content (in contrast you might argue that you are likely to not buy a book because you downloaded it from libgen).
Copyright laws are not millennia-old ethical laws that everyone agrees on (like don't steal), they are a modern human construct that were created for the greater good (incentivize creation), and we should revisit them with new tech.
- lnkl 2y ago"1) it's in the world's best interest." How is pleasing Meta's shareholders in world's best interest.
- TiredOfLife 2y agoHow is using llama for free locally pleasing shareholders?
- jbentley1 2y agoThings can both please share holders and create value for users of that thing.
- ulbu 2y agowat? facebook is going to 'not buy a book' for each book it's gone through. world's best interest that one of the wealthiest companies in the world don't pay their dues? world's best interest? when we know nothing about the societal and political effects llms will have in the hands of such people? what are you rationalising about?
- edoceo 2y ago> incentivize creation Humans do that naturally (see: children) The copyright laws are to protect profit.