19 ms·

The safeguards will prevent the AI from reproducing the proprietary drivers for the IBM-whatever printer, and it will not provide code that breaks the DRM that

by belorn 11mo ago

The safeguards will prevent the AI from reproducing the proprietary drivers for the IBM-whatever printer, and it will not provide code that breaks the DRM that exist to prevent third-party drivers from working with the printer. There will however be no such safeguards or filters to prevent IBM to write a proprietary driver for their next printer, using existing GPL drivers as a building block. Code will only ever go in one direction here.

CamperBob2 11mo ago
Then we'd better stop fighting against AI, and start fighting against so-called "safeguards."
- belorn 11mo ago
  I wish you luck. The music industry basically won their fight in forcing safeguards against AI music. The film industry are gaining laws regulating AI film actors. The code generating AI are only training on freely accessible code and not proprietary code. There is multiple laws being made against AI porn all over the world (or possible already on the books). What we should fight is Rules For Thee but Not for Me.
  - CamperBob2 11mo ago
    The music industry basically won their fight in forcing safeguards against AI music. The film industry are gaining laws regulating AI film actors. The code generating AI are only training on freely accessible code and not proprietary code. There is multiple laws being made against AI porn all over the world (or possible already on the books). Yeah, well, we'll see what our friends in China have to say about all that.
- throwaway290 11mo ago
  "we better stop fighting against CCTVs everywhere and start fighting against them used for indiscriminate surveillance"
  - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
    That's the inverse. Mass surveillance is bad so it should be banned, vs. using AI to thwart proprietary lock-in is good and so shouldn't be banned. But also, is the inverse even wrong? If some store has a local CCTV that keeps recordings for a month in case someone robs them, there is no central feed/database and no one else can get them without a warrant, that's not really that objectionable. If Amazon pipes the feed from every Ring camera to the government, that's very different.
    - throwaway290 11mo ago
      > If some store has a local CCTV By "everywhere" I obviously don't mean "on your private property", I mean "everywhere" as in "on every street corner and so on". If people are OK with their government putting CCTVs on every lamp post on the promise that they are "secure" and "not used to aggregate data and track people" and "only with warrant" then it's kind of "I told you so" when (not if) all of those things turn out to be false. > using AI to thwart proprietary lock-in is good and so shouldn't be banned. It's shortsighted because whoever runs LLMs isn't doing it to help you thwart lock in. It might for now but then they don't care about anything for now, they steal content as fast as they can and they lose billions yearly to make sure they are too big too fail. Once they are too big they will tighten the screws and literally they have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it's legal. And surprise helping people thwart lock-in is relatively much less legal (in addition to much less profitable) than preventing people from thwarting lock-in. It's kind of bizarre to see people thinking these LLM operators will be somehow on the side of freedom and copyleft considering what they are doing.
      - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
        > By "everywhere" I obviously don't mean "on your private property", I mean "everywhere" as in "on every street corner and so on". If they're on each person's private property then they're on every street corner and so on. The distinction you're really after is between decentralized and centralized control/access, which is rather the point. > It's kind of bizarre to see people thinking these LLM operators will be somehow on the side of freedom and copyleft considering what they are doing. You're conflating the operators with the thing itself. LLMs exist and nobody can un-exist them now because they're really just code and data. The only question is, are they a thing that does what you want because there are good published models that anybody can run on their own hardware, or are the only up-to-date ones corporate and censored and politically compromised by every clodpoll who can stir up a mob?

by belorn 11mo ago

CamperBob2 11mo ago

Then we'd better stop fighting against AI, and start fighting against so-called "safeguards."

belorn 11mo ago
I wish you luck. The music industry basically won their fight in forcing safeguards against AI music. The film industry are gaining laws regulating AI film actors. The code generating AI are only training on freely accessible code and not proprietary code. There is multiple laws being made against AI porn all over the world (or possible already on the books). What we should fight is Rules For Thee but Not for Me.
- CamperBob2 11mo ago
  The music industry basically won their fight in forcing safeguards against AI music. The film industry are gaining laws regulating AI film actors. The code generating AI are only training on freely accessible code and not proprietary code. There is multiple laws being made against AI porn all over the world (or possible already on the books). Yeah, well, we'll see what our friends in China have to say about all that.
throwaway290 11mo ago
"we better stop fighting against CCTVs everywhere and start fighting against them used for indiscriminate surveillance"
- AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
  That's the inverse. Mass surveillance is bad so it should be banned, vs. using AI to thwart proprietary lock-in is good and so shouldn't be banned. But also, is the inverse even wrong? If some store has a local CCTV that keeps recordings for a month in case someone robs them, there is no central feed/database and no one else can get them without a warrant, that's not really that objectionable. If Amazon pipes the feed from every Ring camera to the government, that's very different.
  - throwaway290 11mo ago
    > If some store has a local CCTV By "everywhere" I obviously don't mean "on your private property", I mean "everywhere" as in "on every street corner and so on". If people are OK with their government putting CCTVs on every lamp post on the promise that they are "secure" and "not used to aggregate data and track people" and "only with warrant" then it's kind of "I told you so" when (not if) all of those things turn out to be false. > using AI to thwart proprietary lock-in is good and so shouldn't be banned. It's shortsighted because whoever runs LLMs isn't doing it to help you thwart lock in. It might for now but then they don't care about anything for now, they steal content as fast as they can and they lose billions yearly to make sure they are too big too fail. Once they are too big they will tighten the screws and literally they have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as it's legal. And surprise helping people thwart lock-in is relatively much less legal (in addition to much less profitable) than preventing people from thwarting lock-in. It's kind of bizarre to see people thinking these LLM operators will be somehow on the side of freedom and copyleft considering what they are doing.
    - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
      > By "everywhere" I obviously don't mean "on your private property", I mean "everywhere" as in "on every street corner and so on". If they're on each person's private property then they're on every street corner and so on. The distinction you're really after is between decentralized and centralized control/access, which is rather the point. > It's kind of bizarre to see people thinking these LLM operators will be somehow on the side of freedom and copyleft considering what they are doing. You're conflating the operators with the thing itself. LLMs exist and nobody can un-exist them now because they're really just code and data. The only question is, are they a thing that does what you want because there are good published models that anybody can run on their own hardware, or are the only up-to-date ones corporate and censored and politically compromised by every clodpoll who can stir up a mob?