11 ms·
Your rent seeking is not a real world problem. I'm sceptical about the bill, I would be much more so if it was just some kind of wealth redistribution to the lo
by andy99 1y ago
Your rent seeking is not a real world problem. I'm sceptical about the bill, I would be much more so if it was just some kind of wealth redistribution to the loudest complainers.
- drivebyhooting 1y agoI’d rather pay real human authors and artists for their creativity than openAI. As it is, I would never pay for an AI written textbook. And yet who will write the textbooks of tomorrow?
- CamperBob2 1y agoNews flash: You won't have any idea whether the textbook is AI-authored or not.
- bluefirebrand 1y agoThen we trust nothing published after 2020 or so AI will have effectively frozen human progress in a snapshot of time because nothing created after LLMs became widely available will be trustworthy
- AlexandrB 1y agoWho is "we"? A lot of people don't care and will trust new AI generated stuff regardless of how wrong it is. What this means for human progress is uncertain.
- CamperBob2 1y agoAnd if they outcompete you, then what? I guess it'll be a little less uncertain at that point.
- drivebyhooting 1y agoThe same way bacteria can outcompete humans.
- andy99 1y ago> I’d rather pay real human authors and artists for their creativity than openAI. So would I. You've just demonstrated one of the many reasons that any kind of LLM tax that redistributes money to supposedly aggrieved "creators" is a bad idea. While by no means the only argument or even one of the top ones, if an author has a clearly differentiated product from LLM generated content (which all good authors do) why should they also get compensated because of the existence of LLMs? The whole thing is just "someone is making money in a way I didn't think about, not fair!"
- ronsor 1y agoI'd rather not pay OpenAI either. I'll stick with my open-weights models, and I rather anachronistic rent-seeking not kill those. You're not getting a cent from OpenAI, and the government isn't going to do anything about it. Just get over it.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago>You're not getting a cent from OpenAI, and the government isn't going to do anything about it. Just get over it Can hackers imagine saying this last decade when pertaining to Facebook harvesting your data? It's a shame how much this community has fallen into the very grifts they used to call out.
- ronsor 1y agoHackers shilling for copyright is a funny picture.
- drivebyhooting 1y agoInformation wants to be free, right? Except in this case after robbing humanity’s collective knowledge repository OpenAI and its ilk want to charge for access to it, and completely destroyed the economic incentive for any further human development.
- CamperBob2 1y agoHuh. Funny, my knowledge is still there after supposedly being "robbed," just like Walt Disney's movies and J. K. Rowling's books and Bill Gates's software and Lars Ulrich's music. And "further human development" is exactly what's happening. We've just found the entrance to the next level. Our brains have gone about as far as they can on their own, just as our muscles did in the pre-industrial era. It's time to craft some new tools.
- drivebyhooting 1y agoAll of them are trained on copyrighted data. Why is it okay for a model to serve up paraphrased books but verbatim copies from the Pirate Bay are illegal? I don’t deny the utility of LLMs. But copyright law was meant to protect authors from this kind of exploitation. Imagine instead of “magical AGI knowledge compression”, instead these LLM providers just did a search over their “borrowed” corpus and then performed a light paraphrasing of it.
- Retric 1y agoRadio stations get to use anyone’s music but they still need to pay to play that music. Requiring payment to use your product isn’t rent seeking anymore than requiring a hobo to leave your house is. AI companies trying to leverage their power and lobby governments to stiff paying people and thus increase profits is rent seeking behavior. They aren’t creating wealth by non payment, just trying to enrich themselves.
- ndriscoll 1y agoHmm? Creating new models is clearly adding wealth to the world, and it wouldn't terribly surprise me if a lot of source material (e.g. scanned books or recorded music) is older than the people working on models. The history of copyright is basically a perfect example of rent-seeking.
- Retric 1y agoCreating new models doesn’t require taking content without any compensation. That’s the basic flaw in any argument around necessity.
- ndriscoll 1y agoNo, but society has no reason to grant monopolies on 50 year old publications (e.g. textbooks or news articles written or songs recorded prior to 1975), and the changes that were made to copyright law to extend it into multiple generations were actual rent-seeking. i.e. manipulating public policy to transfer wealth from others to you rather than creating wealth. Going with the original 28 year compromise from a time when publishing was much more expensive, anything prior to 1997 would be free for anyone to use for any purpose with no expectation of compensation. We'd all be far richer culturally if we had this base to freely build upon instead of having the last 100 years stolen. Likewise much of the most important information to want to train on (research literature) was just straight up stolen from the public that paid for its creation already. By contrast, the models being created from these works are obviously useful to people today. They are clearly a form of new wealth generation. The open-weights models are even an equitable way of doing so, and are competitive with the top proprietary models. Saying the model creators need to pay the people monopolizing generations-old work is the rent-seeking behavior.