4 ms·

But so far, the point stands, as far as I'm concerned, as these are not competitive (in my humble experience). And the platforms where valuable input comes in

But so far, the point stands, as far as I'm concerned, as these are not competitive (in my humble experience). And the platforms where valuable input comes in (StackOverflow, Reddit, AI tools themselves) all have licenses that would allow them to become rent-seekers on AI models and challenging open models to not provably train on "their" data (the user contributions). This giant clusterfuck could only be avoid when the major social media platforms and coding agents would each use CC0 license for the content they collect. Take this with a huge grain of salt as I'm not a lawyer, not even a well-informed layman. But recent news seem to demonstrate that knowing law is not important anyway, only having capital is. More specifically, I still don't know what the current situation with "fair use" is around training data.

gruez 1y ago
>But so far, the point stands, as far as I'm concerned, as these are not competitive (in my humble experience). Source? The popular narrative, at least a few months ago was that Chinese AI models like deepseek were not far behind models from OpenAI, hence the stock market crash. eg. "DeepSeek’s models are much cheaper and almost as good as American rivals" https://archive.is/2yNzH https://archive.is/2yNzH >And the platforms where valuable input comes in (StackOverflow, Reddit, AI tools themselves) all have licenses that would allow them to become rent-seekers on AI models and challenging open models to not provably train on "their" data (the user contributions). Is there any evidence this actually caused open weights models to be worse? As much as you hate this "rent seeking", it's mostly a sideshow. If open weights models are competitive, then the proof is in the pudding, no need to fret about the morality platforms "rent seeking" over UGC. >This giant clusterfuck could only be avoid when the major social media platforms and coding agents would each use CC0 license for the content they collect. This makes no sense. You can't take some copyrighted content you scraped (eg. some blog post), relicense it as "CC0", and then redistribute it. That's straightforwardly copyright infringement. Search engine and AI companies get away with this because they're not redistributing the raw data itself, but rather a transformed version (ie. snippets and AI models respectively), which helps it pass as "transformative" under the "Purpose and character of the use" part of the fair use test. >More specifically, I still don't know what the current situation with "fair use" is around training data. There was a recent court ruling in the US that basically ruled it's fine to train on copyrighted books without permission, but you can't pirate books to obtain them. This hasn't reached the supreme court yet, so it's not final.
- moritzwarhier 1y ago
  > Source? The popular narrative, at least a few months ago was that Chinese AI models like deepseek were not far behind models from OpenAI, hence the stock market crash Like I said, I was talking from my personal experience. I was comparing the on-prem models I know with the large, proprietary cloud models. This includes variants of DeepSeek, but not the largest one that they host online. > Is there any evidence this actually caused open weights models to be worse? As much as you hate this "rent seeking", it's mostly a sideshow. If open weights models are competitive, then the proof is in the pudding, no need to fret about the morality platforms "rent seeking" over UGC. AI performance is famously hard to benchmark, so no, I don't have "evidence". But it is not unreasonable to assume some generality of my experiences with OpenAI's, Google's and other cloud models vs on-prem self-hosted coding agents models, that is, that the really large proprietary models perform best. Also, I'm not "fretting about morality", I'm relating to the comment you replied to. The point was a monopolization of monetization for knowledge and skills by AI companies, when the data they build on was created for free by humans contributing to social media, or people paying to use cloud AI models. It's possible for me to think about thinks beyond my control without claiming moral authority. > This makes no sense. You can't take some copyrighted content you scraped (eg. some blog post), relicense it as "CC0", and then redistribute it. You are distorting my point and building a strawman. Yes, people willingly give away their work for free, either a) because they willingly accept CC0 or CC-SA (like with SO): https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing Most people who participated in these communities did it for fun, reputation, etc, not anticipating someone monetizing it by interpolating public content using AI or b) because they use Social Media like Reddit and simply don't know or don't care > That's straightforwardly copyright infringement What about a coding agent being able to do something "in its own words" because it sucked up lots of GitHub projects solving this problem, where people spent a lot of time on proper documentation etc > There was a recent court ruling in the US that basically ruled it's fine to train on copyrighted books without permission, but you can't pirate books to obtain them. This hasn't reached the supreme court yet, so it's not final. Wasn't this the same ruling that said it's enough to buy one copy of a book in order to basically sell paraphrased excerpts of said book? Please correct me where I'm wrong, but I have not yet conceived any new information from your comment, and it seems that you distorted some of the previous discussion to make your point, which I'd paraphrase as "current copyright covers AI and there is no threat that AI companies would monetize public content that was put out under licenses meant to prohibit monetizing derivative work"

gruez 1y ago

>But so far, the point stands, as far as I'm concerned, as these are not competitive (in my humble experience). Source? The popular narrative, at least a few months ago was that Chinese AI models like deepseek were not far behind models from OpenAI, hence the stock market crash. eg. "DeepSeek’s models are much cheaper and almost as good as American rivals" https://archive.is/2yNzH https://archive.is/2yNzH >And the platforms where valuable input comes in (StackOverflow, Reddit, AI tools themselves) all have licenses that would allow them to become rent-seekers on AI models and challenging open models to not provably train on "their" data (the user contributions). Is there any evidence this actually caused open weights models to be worse? As much as you hate this "rent seeking", it's mostly a sideshow. If open weights models are competitive, then the proof is in the pudding, no need to fret about the morality platforms "rent seeking" over UGC. >This giant clusterfuck could only be avoid when the major social media platforms and coding agents would each use CC0 license for the content they collect. This makes no sense. You can't take some copyrighted content you scraped (eg. some blog post), relicense it as "CC0", and then redistribute it. That's straightforwardly copyright infringement. Search engine and AI companies get away with this because they're not redistributing the raw data itself, but rather a transformed version (ie. snippets and AI models respectively), which helps it pass as "transformative" under the "Purpose and character of the use" part of the fair use test. >More specifically, I still don't know what the current situation with "fair use" is around training data. There was a recent court ruling in the US that basically ruled it's fine to train on copyrighted books without permission, but you can't pirate books to obtain them. This hasn't reached the supreme court yet, so it's not final.

moritzwarhier 1y ago
> Source? The popular narrative, at least a few months ago was that Chinese AI models like deepseek were not far behind models from OpenAI, hence the stock market crash Like I said, I was talking from my personal experience. I was comparing the on-prem models I know with the large, proprietary cloud models. This includes variants of DeepSeek, but not the largest one that they host online. > Is there any evidence this actually caused open weights models to be worse? As much as you hate this "rent seeking", it's mostly a sideshow. If open weights models are competitive, then the proof is in the pudding, no need to fret about the morality platforms "rent seeking" over UGC. AI performance is famously hard to benchmark, so no, I don't have "evidence". But it is not unreasonable to assume some generality of my experiences with OpenAI's, Google's and other cloud models vs on-prem self-hosted coding agents models, that is, that the really large proprietary models perform best. Also, I'm not "fretting about morality", I'm relating to the comment you replied to. The point was a monopolization of monetization for knowledge and skills by AI companies, when the data they build on was created for free by humans contributing to social media, or people paying to use cloud AI models. It's possible for me to think about thinks beyond my control without claiming moral authority. > This makes no sense. You can't take some copyrighted content you scraped (eg. some blog post), relicense it as "CC0", and then redistribute it. You are distorting my point and building a strawman. Yes, people willingly give away their work for free, either a) because they willingly accept CC0 or CC-SA (like with SO): https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing Most people who participated in these communities did it for fun, reputation, etc, not anticipating someone monetizing it by interpolating public content using AI or b) because they use Social Media like Reddit and simply don't know or don't care > That's straightforwardly copyright infringement What about a coding agent being able to do something "in its own words" because it sucked up lots of GitHub projects solving this problem, where people spent a lot of time on proper documentation etc > There was a recent court ruling in the US that basically ruled it's fine to train on copyrighted books without permission, but you can't pirate books to obtain them. This hasn't reached the supreme court yet, so it's not final. Wasn't this the same ruling that said it's enough to buy one copy of a book in order to basically sell paraphrased excerpts of said book? Please correct me where I'm wrong, but I have not yet conceived any new information from your comment, and it seems that you distorted some of the previous discussion to make your point, which I'd paraphrase as "current copyright covers AI and there is no threat that AI companies would monetize public content that was put out under licenses meant to prohibit monetizing derivative work"