3 ms·

I use LLMs and consider them quite useful, but I think that characterization of detractors is very disingenuous. People don't object to LLMs out of greed and en

I use LLMs and consider them quite useful, but I think that characterization of detractors is very disingenuous. People don't object to LLMs out of greed and entitlement. People object to LLMs because the copyright and IP systems in most of the modern world have equated copying with theft for so long, complete with the threat of legal action and even prison sentences. This system was said to be there to keep people fed and employed. Suddenly, when giant companies have billions of dollars to gain by ignoring copyright, they are allowed to. We've lived in a couple generations where giant companies have been able to completely own and control our culture, which should belong to the people. People object to modern AI because it's another glaring sign that capital doesn't care about human life, and the people who own the capital largely don't either. They will use that as a PR angle until it's not useful anymore, and then proudly say the opposite when it suits them. It's flagrant hypocrisy. I believe that if we had sane copyright terms and limits so we were actually entitled to use and share our own culture and media as we see fit, and better social safety nets so people whose jobs become outmoded didn't have to worry about losing their homes and having their families go hungry, very few people would be actually against LLMs.

dijksterhuis 2y ago
as a detractor, yes, partially (LLMs are also overblown marketing hype BS which is one of the other many reasons). > I believe that if we had sane copyright terms and limits so we were actually entitled to use and share our own culture and media as we see fit, i agreed with everything except this. to me this feels like you’re saying “if only we were allowed to murder people then we’d have less crime” (not exactly what you are saying and a bit hyperbolic, but hopefully it helps highlight my perspective on what you said?). existing copyright laws are the copyright laws. we all have to follow them or face penalties/consequences. just like the laws on murder/homicide etc. it’s the fact these companies are being allowed to flaunt the law with zero repercussions i have a problem with (specifically on this one of the problems). if they’d licensed all the content and it was opt-out — i wouldn’t give a shit about this part. having worked in copyright, i feel very strongly about it. as do most people who have their works protected by it. its very easy to argue against copyright protections when your livelihood does not depend on it (note: i’m not arguing against you here, you mentioned social safety nets etc which is one direction to go i suppose, i’m just venting somewhat at the oft repeated opinion here on HN that copyright is evil and should be completely abolished… good luck listening to any decent music in ten years time if that happens!!). edit — i know there’s nothing i can do about this. which also contributes to the misanthropic attitudes towards magic LLMs.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  FWIW, my perspective and descriptions of the detractors is aimed primarily at the detractors I see - which are notably not the artists or other people whose livelihood depends on copyright protection. Instead, the loudest voices are of the bystanders who imagined possible windfall if only OpenAI et al. had to pay them for using their Reddit comments and a few blog articles written half a decade ago. These are the "I won't write comments on public forums anymore, nor will I blog, because LLMs" voices. I fundamentally believe that people are not entitled to 100% of the value created by their labor - in fact, society can only function if there's surplus that others can build upon, and when companies try to capture 100% of their output, we call this out as extreme greed and a symptom of "late stage capitalism". I do agree that people who are directly affected by LLMs basically replacing their job have a valid argument, though I don't think the core of it relates to copyright anyway. As for the laws: > it’s the fact these companies are being allowed to flaunt the law with zero repercussions i have a problem with (specifically on this one of the problems). It's not been determined they actually broke the law on this. AFAIK it's still an open question, pending (in the US) court verdicts or (elsewhere in the world) updates to IP regulation. Morally, I personally think use of data for training AI is not violating copyright entirely, and is closer to a person consuming content and learning from it - but more importantly, I think preventing this use to be denying humanity great value for no good reason. Almost all content in the training set, on the margin, is both contributing an infinitesimal bit to the resulting model, and at the same time, it's providing much more value this way than it ever had before.

dijksterhuis 2y ago

as a detractor, yes, partially (LLMs are also overblown marketing hype BS which is one of the other many reasons). > I believe that if we had sane copyright terms and limits so we were actually entitled to use and share our own culture and media as we see fit, i agreed with everything except this. to me this feels like you’re saying “if only we were allowed to murder people then we’d have less crime” (not exactly what you are saying and a bit hyperbolic, but hopefully it helps highlight my perspective on what you said?). existing copyright laws are the copyright laws. we all have to follow them or face penalties/consequences. just like the laws on murder/homicide etc. it’s the fact these companies are being allowed to flaunt the law with zero repercussions i have a problem with (specifically on this one of the problems). if they’d licensed all the content and it was opt-out — i wouldn’t give a shit about this part. having worked in copyright, i feel very strongly about it. as do most people who have their works protected by it. its very easy to argue against copyright protections when your livelihood does not depend on it (note: i’m not arguing against you here, you mentioned social safety nets etc which is one direction to go i suppose, i’m just venting somewhat at the oft repeated opinion here on HN that copyright is evil and should be completely abolished… good luck listening to any decent music in ten years time if that happens!!). edit — i know there’s nothing i can do about this. which also contributes to the misanthropic attitudes towards magic LLMs.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
FWIW, my perspective and descriptions of the detractors is aimed primarily at the detractors I see - which are notably not the artists or other people whose livelihood depends on copyright protection. Instead, the loudest voices are of the bystanders who imagined possible windfall if only OpenAI et al. had to pay them for using their Reddit comments and a few blog articles written half a decade ago. These are the "I won't write comments on public forums anymore, nor will I blog, because LLMs" voices. I fundamentally believe that people are not entitled to 100% of the value created by their labor - in fact, society can only function if there's surplus that others can build upon, and when companies try to capture 100% of their output, we call this out as extreme greed and a symptom of "late stage capitalism". I do agree that people who are directly affected by LLMs basically replacing their job have a valid argument, though I don't think the core of it relates to copyright anyway. As for the laws: > it’s the fact these companies are being allowed to flaunt the law with zero repercussions i have a problem with (specifically on this one of the problems). It's not been determined they actually broke the law on this. AFAIK it's still an open question, pending (in the US) court verdicts or (elsewhere in the world) updates to IP regulation. Morally, I personally think use of data for training AI is not violating copyright entirely, and is closer to a person consuming content and learning from it - but more importantly, I think preventing this use to be denying humanity great value for no good reason. Almost all content in the training set, on the margin, is both contributing an infinitesimal bit to the resulting model, and at the same time, it's providing much more value this way than it ever had before.