4 ms·

Might is irrelevant and doesn't prevent any abuse, nor does it foster innovative environment. Both the EU and the US, need to pick a side. Either they should ma

Might is irrelevant and doesn't prevent any abuse, nor does it foster innovative environment. Both the EU and the US, need to pick a side. Either they should make it illegal and establish precedent, or just let go.

GaggiX 2y ago
>Either they should make it illegal and establish precedent At that point we just wait for the next Chinese open source model.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  This is also why we won't get a Big Tech crackdown any time soon of any significance; and would not have even under the previous administration. Big Tech is the US' golden goose in the race against China. Deepseek shows China is at the doorstep, much closer and more capable than previously assumed. Any thoughts politically about how we can simultaneously crack down on Big Tech, while keeping China in check with sanctions, just went out the window.
- anonymousab 2y ago
  Expecting companies to actually license copyrighted material instead of mass infringement is fairly reasonable given they've demanded the same for decades from the populace. "China's not going to respect those laws" is kinda beside the point. If they suddenly decided to cut everyone in the nation's pay in half - or double it - that would have no bearing on what is right for you or I to do.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    > If they suddenly decided to cut everyone in the nation's pay in half - or double it - that would have no bearing on what is right for you or I to do. They literally did exactly that relative to the salaries of the rest of the world, and everyone took them up on it. In retrospect, keeping China a weak communist nation was so easy. There was even internal dissent in the late 80s. It simply required refusing to make trade deals. US and worldwide wages would have been higher, discontent would have continued fermenting, the party would have remained relatively weak, human rights would not have been so easily sold out to the lowest bidder, the US would probably not have lost 6 million manufacturing jobs in a decade (3x the number of jobs in SV), and we blew it.
    - portaouflop 2y ago
      Capitalism doesn’t care about rights or how much you get paid — the only relevant metric is how much money you make so this was inevitable in capitalist America.
    - myrmidon 2y ago
      > In retrospect, keeping China a weak communist nation was so easy. This is extremely naive, and fallacious. As policymaker, you do not know beforehand how countries are going to develop over a 40 year period (not even your own country :P). Thus the only realistic option would've been a catch-all sanction regime against... possible future geopolitical rivals? Non-democratic nations? States with different cultural values? No matter which you pick, sacrificing trade like that would've been extremely expensive and limiting for US growth (might've included India, Africa, Vietnam, Thailand, Japan, Europe, Russia, depending on what criteria you pick). You might have seen other countries jumping at the opportunity, filling the gap and benefitting immensely in the process, like the EU, or India, Russia, Japan, some pan-African Union... The only certainty in the outcome is that the US in such a scenario would NOT be as wealthy as it is today.
    - thot_experiment 2y ago
      China isn't meaningfully communist. In general them stealing our jobs is probably a good thing on the whole. It's a complex issue, and I would be happy if we were pressuring China hard because of it's human rights abuses but global wealth inequality going down is something to be celebrated, protectionism sucks. I know it's complicated, but I can't be too mad about our wealth being "stolen" to lift people out of poverty, it's something I think we should be doing willingly.
      - philipov 2y ago
        Great sentiment, but let's start by doing it domestically first.
        thot_experiment 2y ago
        I think for my viewpoint to be internally consistent it needs to happen internationally as well as domestically. ofc this is all a pipedream anyway, there's barely an appetite for lifting the people in the tenderloin out of poverty and I'm trying to convince people that we'd all win by tending toward a "humanity vs the universe" viewpoint that's based on the idea that all the folks on the planet deserve to have it good. "when you're used to privilege, the loss of it feels like oppression" It will hurt to fix this, but I don't think it needs to hurt that much I think it would hurt a lot less if we were actually trying to make it happen rather than occasionally being dragged kicking and screaming in that direction. (i do not have any meaningful ideas how to bring about this kind of change, (maybe a fake giant squid alien in manhattan? :P))
  - GaggiX 2y ago
    You can't license 20T of tokens, I guess it's hard to grasp how big these datasets are.
    - runako 2y ago
      "Can't" or "don't want to"? OpenAI is talking about spending half a trillion US dollars, they have the money to license data. In music, there is compulsory licensing and companies that use recorded music are able to make the economics work. It needs to be repeated that these are not simply "tokens", they are the product of millions of individual people that are being appropriated for the financial gain of a very few other people.
      - woah 2y ago
        Imagine if the US (public and private sector), transferred 2% of GDP to Warner Bros
      - GaggiX 2y ago
        >"Can't" or "don't want to"? Can't. Even if someone has the money (I truly doubt), you can't contact millions of copyright owners (as you report).
        hereweareagain 2y ago
        If it's impossible to do it legally, then they shouldn't be able to do it. Violating one person's rights is illegal, but violating a billion's rights for profit is fine? I'm in support of them being able to do it, but the right avenue is by working and lobbying hard to change antiquated copyright laws. Being able to disregard copyright only if you have enough billions of dollars on hand is the worst outcome. It's literally laws that only apply to the poor.
        ghaff 2y ago
        Be careful where you're going here. If you maximally/strictly interpret copyright law, the Internet Archive (including Wayback Machine) is largely violating copyright all the time. (WAY beyond the ongoing dispute with the publishers over the lending library.) Most web content is non-permissively licensed.
aithrowawaycomm 2y ago
There are other things about the AI industry that don't foster an "innovative environment": - companies being allowed to spin fairy tales about their products' capabilities - no real consequences to enabling scammers, copyright thieves, and misinformation factories That stuff might be good for securing short-term investment - and it befits a society obsessed with cryptocurrency and sports gambling. But it doesn't seem good for building meaningfully smarter computers, just dumber computer users.
BoredPositron 2y ago
Force them to open source it.
philipov 2y ago
Force them to open source it!
lupusreal 2y ago
Creation of new laws, and enforcement of existing laws usually trails behind the bleeding edge of tech. It's part of the risk tech companies accept when they're doing something new which might possibly be a bit dodgy.

GaggiX 2y ago

>Either they should make it illegal and establish precedent At that point we just wait for the next Chinese open source model.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
This is also why we won't get a Big Tech crackdown any time soon of any significance; and would not have even under the previous administration. Big Tech is the US' golden goose in the race against China. Deepseek shows China is at the doorstep, much closer and more capable than previously assumed. Any thoughts politically about how we can simultaneously crack down on Big Tech, while keeping China in check with sanctions, just went out the window.
anonymousab 2y ago
Expecting companies to actually license copyrighted material instead of mass infringement is fairly reasonable given they've demanded the same for decades from the populace. "China's not going to respect those laws" is kinda beside the point. If they suddenly decided to cut everyone in the nation's pay in half - or double it - that would have no bearing on what is right for you or I to do.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  > If they suddenly decided to cut everyone in the nation's pay in half - or double it - that would have no bearing on what is right for you or I to do. They literally did exactly that relative to the salaries of the rest of the world, and everyone took them up on it. In retrospect, keeping China a weak communist nation was so easy. There was even internal dissent in the late 80s. It simply required refusing to make trade deals. US and worldwide wages would have been higher, discontent would have continued fermenting, the party would have remained relatively weak, human rights would not have been so easily sold out to the lowest bidder, the US would probably not have lost 6 million manufacturing jobs in a decade (3x the number of jobs in SV), and we blew it.
  - portaouflop 2y ago
    Capitalism doesn’t care about rights or how much you get paid — the only relevant metric is how much money you make so this was inevitable in capitalist America.
  - myrmidon 2y ago
    > In retrospect, keeping China a weak communist nation was so easy. This is extremely naive, and fallacious. As policymaker, you do not know beforehand how countries are going to develop over a 40 year period (not even your own country :P). Thus the only realistic option would've been a catch-all sanction regime against... possible future geopolitical rivals? Non-democratic nations? States with different cultural values? No matter which you pick, sacrificing trade like that would've been extremely expensive and limiting for US growth (might've included India, Africa, Vietnam, Thailand, Japan, Europe, Russia, depending on what criteria you pick). You might have seen other countries jumping at the opportunity, filling the gap and benefitting immensely in the process, like the EU, or India, Russia, Japan, some pan-African Union... The only certainty in the outcome is that the US in such a scenario would NOT be as wealthy as it is today.
  - thot_experiment 2y ago
    China isn't meaningfully communist. In general them stealing our jobs is probably a good thing on the whole. It's a complex issue, and I would be happy if we were pressuring China hard because of it's human rights abuses but global wealth inequality going down is something to be celebrated, protectionism sucks. I know it's complicated, but I can't be too mad about our wealth being "stolen" to lift people out of poverty, it's something I think we should be doing willingly.
    - philipov 2y ago
      Great sentiment, but let's start by doing it domestically first.
      - thot_experiment 2y ago
        I think for my viewpoint to be internally consistent it needs to happen internationally as well as domestically. ofc this is all a pipedream anyway, there's barely an appetite for lifting the people in the tenderloin out of poverty and I'm trying to convince people that we'd all win by tending toward a "humanity vs the universe" viewpoint that's based on the idea that all the folks on the planet deserve to have it good. "when you're used to privilege, the loss of it feels like oppression" It will hurt to fix this, but I don't think it needs to hurt that much I think it would hurt a lot less if we were actually trying to make it happen rather than occasionally being dragged kicking and screaming in that direction. (i do not have any meaningful ideas how to bring about this kind of change, (maybe a fake giant squid alien in manhattan? :P))
- GaggiX 2y ago
  You can't license 20T of tokens, I guess it's hard to grasp how big these datasets are.
  - runako 2y ago
    "Can't" or "don't want to"? OpenAI is talking about spending half a trillion US dollars, they have the money to license data. In music, there is compulsory licensing and companies that use recorded music are able to make the economics work. It needs to be repeated that these are not simply "tokens", they are the product of millions of individual people that are being appropriated for the financial gain of a very few other people.
    - woah 2y ago
      Imagine if the US (public and private sector), transferred 2% of GDP to Warner Bros
    - GaggiX 2y ago
      >"Can't" or "don't want to"? Can't. Even if someone has the money (I truly doubt), you can't contact millions of copyright owners (as you report).
      - hereweareagain 2y ago
        If it's impossible to do it legally, then they shouldn't be able to do it. Violating one person's rights is illegal, but violating a billion's rights for profit is fine? I'm in support of them being able to do it, but the right avenue is by working and lobbying hard to change antiquated copyright laws. Being able to disregard copyright only if you have enough billions of dollars on hand is the worst outcome. It's literally laws that only apply to the poor.
        ghaff 2y ago
        Be careful where you're going here. If you maximally/strictly interpret copyright law, the Internet Archive (including Wayback Machine) is largely violating copyright all the time. (WAY beyond the ongoing dispute with the publishers over the lending library.) Most web content is non-permissively licensed.

aithrowawaycomm 2y ago

There are other things about the AI industry that don't foster an "innovative environment": - companies being allowed to spin fairy tales about their products' capabilities - no real consequences to enabling scammers, copyright thieves, and misinformation factories That stuff might be good for securing short-term investment - and it befits a society obsessed with cryptocurrency and sports gambling. But it doesn't seem good for building meaningfully smarter computers, just dumber computer users.

BoredPositron 2y ago

Force them to open source it.

philipov 2y ago

Force them to open source it!

lupusreal 2y ago

Creation of new laws, and enforcement of existing laws usually trails behind the bleeding edge of tech. It's part of the risk tech companies accept when they're doing something new which might possibly be a bit dodgy.